|
On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law. Show nested quote +Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant. You're derailing the point with convoluted hypothetical situations to make a completely irrelevant point. In the context of this discussion and just about every discussion on the issue, there is a common, roughly drawn acceptance of what "theft" or whatever other issue you're talking about, is.
According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one.
I believe a society should be based upon voluntary behavior and voluntary exchange as much as possible, and that the use of force or violence which has been granted to the state as a monopoly, should be used as rarely as possible and only with a strong justification. With that said, there are many ways to tax someone in a voluntaristic manner. For example, to finance the production of roads you can put a tax on gasoline. In this way, the taxation is predicated on the person actually purchasing the gas and using the roads. Such a purchase is completely voluntary, and therefore isn't theft, it's an exchange. Forcefully taking the income of an entire nation seems a particularly immoral way of paying for many of the benefits the state provides.
Disregarding all of the ideas or notions that libertarians provide on the basis of some straw man argument that the only alternative to a society based upon force and coercion is an anarchic society with no structure and ruled by chaos. Libertarian philosophy is based upon a very basic morality which I think most people agree with, and we should adhere to the non-aggression principle as much as possible when running a society.
|
On January 30 2012 05:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Is this supposed to connect to the discussion or is it a question for the sake of a different topic?
For the sake of a different topic.. it also ties well into the republican nomination thread as the federal reserve is actively loaning USD to the ECB in the tune of nearly $100 Billion..
|
On January 30 2012 05:42 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:25 Hider wrote:On January 30 2012 05:22 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Optimizing? How do you define that. Do you have some kind of magic formula for the perfect society you would like to share with us? Certainly. By evidence, looking at the world today, the most successful states are those that are democratically run based off capitalism with a lot of government control, decent control over law enforcement, with good public education, little to no civil unrest (or oppression by the government), and little to no immigration (immigration leads to tension) and are absolutely secure against foreign powers by virtue of international treaties and combined military might. In addition, freedom og press and little to no corruption is vital. Finland, Australia and Norway are among the very best today. Succesfull state = optimized state = No corruption, high level education, safe against foreign powers. I assume low immigration isn't a goal in it self (for you) but it makes it possible for the state to be succesful. Anything you would like to add your optimized stats (any other quantifiable characteristics?) Uhm, yeah ... 1) You are trying to make it seem like I said something I didn't. 2) If I want to make a case, it would be an optimized state succeeds in making the quality of life for the citizens as high as possible with every individual being as important as every other individual - and those that comes after. Sustainability is important (so huge debt is not optimal). 3) Studies have shown that great wealth does not equal happiness, but having a lot less than those around you or your neighbours, family and friends, leads to unhappiness. Therefore equality in itself means less unhappiness among those that otherwise would have little. However, too much equality is bad for the economy - exactly where the right mix is, depends on culture and society. 4) Equality under the law, and that people run the country in the direction they feel is wise, instead of the direction they are paid to run it (little corruption), and stability and security, is important to succeed for everyone and not just those that pay to have influence. 5) A good start in life, so everyone gets the opportunity to try to succeed, is vital because it leads to less dependends on the state and more people contributing to society. 6) Security is important: so low crime rates, and security against other nations aggression. But high or low tax rates, big or small public sector, big or small military, how much government control, etc etc etc, would differ depending on the states resources and possibilities. And as I said, looking at the world today, I find it very easy to point to Australia, Finland and Norway and say - these succeed better than most. One could also argue definitions ... for example, a nations primary responsibility is to its citizens, but secondary to all the people within it's border, and when a state is dependent on immigration workers, or slaves, or females, or any other group without equal rights, it's really not clear that the happiness of the citizens alone is what should be measured. But that can be argued back and forth ... If you want something similar to what I am saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_IndexNumbers are for 2005, before the current economic downturn which probably changes a lot of the numbers. But the overall idea is rather simple: democratic governments with focus on regulated capitalism does better than anything else.
Well first of all I honestly didn't try to anything except make it very clear how I understood your "magic formula". But I guess you weren't talking about your magic formula even though that was what I asked you about, and then you decide to blaim me for manipulating what you said? (really come on, dont go that low).
But then that is said, thanks for giving me idea of what you interpret as a succesful state.
|
On January 30 2012 05:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law. Murder = could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you view this. If you murder 10.000 people because they according to you violate your reglion. Then its probably a good thing according to those people who agree with the murder. They might consider the murder legal in their country (or according to their relglion), because the law says so. Yet it is still murder. Because if we need to change the definition depending on whether its good or bad, then its an impossible task, because values are subjective. People have different opinion.
It's not about changing a definition... Who do you think write the definitions of words in the first place? God? Who gets to decide what defintion is the true one? You? Should a word always mean the same no matter how it is used or how long ago it was defined? What about when the definition varies depending on the language?
|
On January 30 2012 05:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:40 Hider wrote:On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law. Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant. You're derailing the point with convoluted hypothetical situations to make a completely irrelevant point. In the context of this discussion and just about every discussion on the issue, there is a common, roughly drawn acceptance of what "theft" or whatever other issue you're talking about, is. No Im prooving a poiont by making an extreme example to illustrate that having a legal definition makes no sense in this debate. Again, your point is irrelevant to our discussion. This is not a philosophy class that is discussing the meanings of certain terms - we are discussing a very specific topic (the idea that taxes are or are not theft) and certain basic assumptions are made for this discussion because we already have a context for the discussion (U.S. culture).
This is exactly what we are doing. This is a philopical discussion (can taxes be justified?). Hence it makes a lot of sense to have a absolute definition of theft. Not a relative definition that depended on the law (its not a law class).
|
On January 30 2012 05:47 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law. Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant. You're derailing the point with convoluted hypothetical situations to make a completely irrelevant point. In the context of this discussion and just about every discussion on the issue, there is a common, roughly drawn acceptance of what "theft" or whatever other issue you're talking about, is. According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one. I believe a society should be based upon voluntary behavior and voluntary exchange as much as possible, and that the use of force or violence which has been granted to the state as a monopoly, should be used as rarely as possible and only with a strong justification. With that said, there are many ways to tax someone in a voluntaristic manner. For example, to finance the production of roads you can put a tax on gasoline. In this way, the taxation is predicated on the person actually purchasing the gas and using the roads. Such a purchase is completely voluntary, and therefore isn't theft, it's an exchange. Forcefully taking the income of an entire nation seems a particularly immoral way of paying for many of the benefits the state provides. Disregarding all of the ideas or notions that libertarians provide on the basis of some straw man argument that the only alternative to a society based upon force and coercion is an anarchic society with no structure and ruled by chaos. Libertarian philosophy is based upon a very basic morality which I think most people agree with, and we should adhere to the non-aggression principle as much as possible when running a society.
"Taking of property of another person without their consent"
Yet if you owe the government this money based on the principle of taxes, then why is it yours to be taken in the first place? It's owed to the government, so it's the government's money.
I purposely limited this discussion to physical protection/protection of rights - law enforcement, courts, etc. Past that, there's plenty of controversy with taxes and how they are spent, but if you are going to argue that taxes are theft, you need to justify the idea that being taxed to pay for protection that is given to you is theft as well.
This is exactly what we are doing. This is a philopical discussion (can taxes be justified?). Hence it makes a lot of sense to have a absolute definition of theft. Not a relative definition that depended on the law (its not a law class).
Again, you've been going on about definitions like this and yet several other people here have been discussing the issue perfectly fine with an assumed definition of the word.
|
On January 30 2012 05:47 liberal wrote:
According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one.
You don't own 100% of the property. The state owns part of your property. It's called taxes. By being part of society, you agree to support society by paying whatever taxes are agreed upon. You consent to this by not moving somewhere else. So it's not theft.
Morally, you are entitled to wish it was some other way - and use whatever political system exist to try to change it to something closer to what you envision as fair.
Or move somewhere else and try there.
Your argument is a common one, but it's based off the flawed understanding that you don't consent to taxes when you are part of a nation. In fact, you do.
|
On January 30 2012 05:57 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:47 liberal wrote:
According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one. You don't own 100% of the property. The state owns part of your property. It's called taxes. By being part of society, you agree to support society by paying whatever taxes are agreed upon. You consent to this by not moving somewhere else. So it's not theft. Morally, you are entitled to wish it was some other way - and use whatever political system exist to try to change it to something closer to what you envision as fair. Or move somewhere else and try there. Your argument is a common one, but it's based off the flawed understanding that you don't consent to taxes when you are part of a nation. In fact, you do.
This is a terribly flawed philosophy. Telling someone that not "moving away" is somehow granting consent is just wrong.
If I enter your home and start eating your food and using your things, you have every right to protest and tell me to get out. I can't simply turn to you and say "if you don't like it, leave your house. You aren't forced to live here." If someone was born in a nation, it is THEIR HOME. The government doesn't own you because you were born in their borders. The government doesn't own your wealth because it was created in their borders.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
-Declaration of Independence
There is nothing wrong with the government taxing the people and providing them services so long as the exchange is always VOLUNTARY. The fact that I'm receiving something that someone thinks is good for me doesn't mean they are entitled to take my money from me, I have to consent first. I can't hand you a cheeseburger and then take your wallet from you because I "provided you with a good." The lack of CONSENT is what defines theft.
With that said, that doesn't mean that theft is always unjustified, for example, if it is used to save a life, etc.
|
To get back to the actual nomination, quoting 538:
Based on the polling out through Saturday evening, Newt Gingrich had become a clear underdog to Mitt Romney in the Florida primary. But you could at least make the case that the downward trajectory in Mr. Gingrich’s polling had stopped, leaving open the possibility of a last-minute comeback.
Now, that case has become much harder to make. Four polls released Sunday morning — from NBC News, Mason-Dixon, American Research Group and Rasmussen Reports — each give Mr. Romney a double-digit advantage in Florida.
Link
Gingrich might be done for, and Romney will have finished 1st or 2nd in all states up to this point, which put together with a florida win, probably is going to lock it up for him, barring any major upsets. I can't see Santorum or Paul making a comeback.
|
On January 30 2012 06:15 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:57 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:47 liberal wrote:
According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one. You don't own 100% of the property. The state owns part of your property. It's called taxes. By being part of society, you agree to support society by paying whatever taxes are agreed upon. You consent to this by not moving somewhere else. So it's not theft. Morally, you are entitled to wish it was some other way - and use whatever political system exist to try to change it to something closer to what you envision as fair. Or move somewhere else and try there. Your argument is a common one, but it's based off the flawed understanding that you don't consent to taxes when you are part of a nation. In fact, you do. This is a terribly flawed philosophy. Telling someone that not "moving away" is somehow granting consent is just wrong. If I enter your home and start eating your food and using your things, you have every right to protest and tell me to get out. I can't simply turn to you and say "if you don't like it, leave your house. You aren't forced to live here." If someone was born in a nation, it is THEIR HOME. The government doesn't own you because you were born in their borders. The government doesn't own your wealth because it was created in their borders. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." -Declaration of Independence There is nothing wrong with the government taxing the people and providing them services so long as the exchange is always VOLUNTARY. The fact that I'm receiving something that someone thinks is good for me doesn't mean they are entitled to take my money from me, I have to consent first. I can't hand you a cheeseburger and then take your wallet from you because I "provided you with a good." The lack of CONSENT is what defines theft.
A system of law enforcement/legal protection can't work on the basis of opting because then you have conflicting interests and not everyone is held to the same standard. Furthermore, you are consenting by reaping the benefits of government. That is why the property (the taxes you owe) isn't yours. You've already and are continuously gaining the benefits of these things, so you have to pay for them. Your analogy works, but in the opposite direction. The government would be the owner of the house, and you are the one that is barging in and enjoying their things (protection and enforcement of the law) without paying for them. The government will actually be nice and not take these protections away from you, but will force you to pay for them (via taxes) to make up for the fact that you're just taking them. Again, if you didn't like that, you could just move out of the house, but if you're going to just stay and reap the benefits, you don't get to be spoiled and lazy and complain about being charged dues to pay for the services you're given.
|
|
|
On January 30 2012 06:15 liberal wrote:
This is a terribly flawed philosophy. Telling someone that not "moving away" is somehow granting consent is just wrong.
If I enter your home and start eating your food and using your things, you have every right to protest and tell me to get out. I can simply turn to you and say "if you don't like it, leave your house. You aren't forced to live here." If someone was born in a nation, it is THEIR HOME. The government doesn't own you because you were born in their borders. The government doesn't own your wealth because it was created in their borders.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
-Declaration of Independence
There is nothing wrong with the government taxing the people and providing them services so long as the exchange is always VOLUNTARY. The fact that I'm receiving something that someone thinks is good for me doesn't mean they are entitled to take my money from me, I have to consent first. I can't hand you a cheeseburger and then take your wallet from you because I "provided you with a good." The lack of CONSENT is what defines theft.
Actually, the governed (citizens) makes the rules in a democracy. It's voluntary by the citizens that taxes should be paid. If the citizens didn't think taxes should be paid, they wouldn't be - because they would change the rules. It's a democracy after all.
Your understanding of it is flawed because you don't understand that property rights is guaranteed by the government and by the judiciary branch, and not by whatever you feel like owning.
In fact, without government, I could make a house, and someone could come by and burn it to the ground and build their own there, because if I myself on my own cannot enforce my will on others and stop them, I simply can't stop them from using the location I had a house - because I don't own the location. With government and property rights, in all its forms, however, I can own the site, and own my house, and the government can own part of my income in taxes. Because that's how it's been decided that property rights should work.
Property rights isn't just the part you like, it's how everything works together.
There is no difference between you borrowing money and buy a house that you 'own' and you saving up money and buying a house that you 'own' - in both cases, the state defines it as 'yours' but that right can be taken away from you if the courts decide that it should because you owe money on the loan or state taxes or whatever.
Property rights in a democracy works how society have decided that it does. There's no theft if the state takes what it is owed fairly.
Philosophically, I think it's much easier to say that you own yourself and nothing else, than that taxes are theft. Because the last part doesn't make sense, because ownership is defined by the state - not you.
|
Sorry, I just don't believe that property, murder, theft, etc. are all defined by the state. I think they do and they need to have a meaning external to the state, otherwise we could just define away tyranny and authoritarianism. I do believe in democracy, but I don't think that a majority of citizens should be allowed to vote to violate the rights of a minority. From a moral perspective, some state sanctioned theft can be justified, but not to the degree that we have in modern societies.
I don't want this to completely derail the thread, I'm just offering my opinion here. I'll stop with this post.
|
On January 30 2012 06:30 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 06:15 liberal wrote:
This is a terribly flawed philosophy. Telling someone that not "moving away" is somehow granting consent is just wrong.
If I enter your home and start eating your food and using your things, you have every right to protest and tell me to get out. I can simply turn to you and say "if you don't like it, leave your house. You aren't forced to live here." If someone was born in a nation, it is THEIR HOME. The government doesn't own you because you were born in their borders. The government doesn't own your wealth because it was created in their borders.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
-Declaration of Independence
There is nothing wrong with the government taxing the people and providing them services so long as the exchange is always VOLUNTARY. The fact that I'm receiving something that someone thinks is good for me doesn't mean they are entitled to take my money from me, I have to consent first. I can't hand you a cheeseburger and then take your wallet from you because I "provided you with a good." The lack of CONSENT is what defines theft. Actually, the governed (citizens) makes the rules in a democracy. It's voluntary by the citizens that taxes should be paid. If the citizens didn't think taxes should be paid, they wouldn't be - because they would change the rules. It's a democracy after all. Your understanding of it is flawed because you don't understand that property rights is guaranteed by the government and by the judiciary branch, and not by whatever you feel like owning. In fact, without government, I could make a house, and someone could come by and burn it to the ground and build their own there, because if I myself on my own cannot enforce my will on others and stop them, I simply can't stop them from using the location I had a house - because I don't own the location. With government and property rights, in all its forms, however, I can own the site, and own my house, and the government can own part of my income in taxes. Because that's how it's been decided that property rights should work. Property rights isn't just the part you like, it's how everything works together. There is no difference between you borrowing money and buy a house that you 'own' and you saving up money and buying a house that you 'own' - in both cases, the state defines it as 'yours' but that right can be taken away from you if the courts decide that it should because you owe money on the loan or state taxes or whatever. Property rights in a democracy works how society have decided that it does. There's no theft if the state takes what it is owed fairly. Philosophically, I think it's much easier to say that you own yourself and nothing else, than that taxes are theft. Because the last part doesn't make sense, because ownership is defined by the state - not you.
Well I can't help my self. But, fairly = If everything goes by the law?
So if Hitler made a law saying jews had no private property rights = Fair?
Yes the reason I make these extreme comparasions, is to make you define the terms you are using. Because its hard to have a debate when people have a different interperation of what fair is.
Is a law only fair if they are made so that the government can become a "succesfull government" (according to your own definition of succesfull government).
|
On January 30 2012 04:46 Mordanis wrote:
Just a quick thought that I just had but don't necessarily believe:
Is unequal distribution of wealth necessarily a negative thing? Most psychologists seem to agree that wealth and income play a statistically significant role in subjective well-being, but a very small role. In a way, if wealth doesn't correlate very strongly with happiness, why shouldn't 5 people control the wealth of the world as long as everyone else is free to choose what to work in and everything else? Obviously there needs to be some system that ensures that people don't starve because they cannot access any food, but we don't even have that throughout the whole world. Can anyone give a good argument against this besides something to the effect of "it isn't fair"? Again, I don't actually believe this (yet at least), but I do think that people are far too occupied with the distribution of wealth.
No. It's positive thing. If everyone had equal wealth, that would mean they would have the same wealth at all points in life, meaning they could not grow their wealth over time. It is ludicrous for ANYONE to talk about equality of wealth as a good thing, because it makes absolutely zero economic sense.
Older people make more, a LOT more, than younger people. Does that mean we need to distribute income from older people to younger people? Hell no. They make more cause they have more skills, more market value, and can do more for a company.
|
On January 29 2012 23:02 Hider wrote:
Paraleluniverse:
"Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
|
On January 30 2012 05:57 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:47 liberal wrote:
According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one. You don't own 100% of the property. The state owns part of your property. It's called taxes. By being part of society, you agree to support society by paying whatever taxes are agreed upon. You consent to this by not moving somewhere else. So it's not theft. Morally, you are entitled to wish it was some other way - and use whatever political system exist to try to change it to something closer to what you envision as fair. Or move somewhere else and try there. Your argument is a common one, but it's based off the flawed understanding that you don't consent to taxes when you are part of a nation. In fact, you do.
Voluntary association. This does not have it. You don't choose to be part of society. You are forced to give them your stuff with guns to your face.
|
On January 30 2012 07:30 NATO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:57 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:47 liberal wrote:
According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one. You don't own 100% of the property. The state owns part of your property. It's called taxes. By being part of society, you agree to support society by paying whatever taxes are agreed upon. You consent to this by not moving somewhere else. So it's not theft. Morally, you are entitled to wish it was some other way - and use whatever political system exist to try to change it to something closer to what you envision as fair. Or move somewhere else and try there. Your argument is a common one, but it's based off the flawed understanding that you don't consent to taxes when you are part of a nation. In fact, you do. Voluntary association. This does not have it. You don't choose to be part of society. You are forced to give them your stuff with guns to your face.
Are taxes "theft"? Well of course. But they're the price you pay for a civil society. It's the price you paid to guarantee that you had an education growing up, that your parents wouldn't need to worry about medical bills when they got into old age, and that you could actually keep most of the property that you earned. No one is making you stay.
|
On January 30 2012 07:23 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 23:02 Hider wrote:
Paraleluniverse:
"Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500. Your example is completely divorced from reality. In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work. Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing? You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired).
Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
|
On January 30 2012 07:32 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 07:30 NATO wrote:On January 30 2012 05:57 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:47 liberal wrote:
According to my definition of theft, it's the taking of property of another person without their consent. We could get in a large debate in itself about how we define or determine someone's "property," but according to this simple definition, most forms of taxation are theft. And when I say theft, I'm speaking from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL one. You don't own 100% of the property. The state owns part of your property. It's called taxes. By being part of society, you agree to support society by paying whatever taxes are agreed upon. You consent to this by not moving somewhere else. So it's not theft. Morally, you are entitled to wish it was some other way - and use whatever political system exist to try to change it to something closer to what you envision as fair. Or move somewhere else and try there. Your argument is a common one, but it's based off the flawed understanding that you don't consent to taxes when you are part of a nation. In fact, you do. Voluntary association. This does not have it. You don't choose to be part of society. You are forced to give them your stuff with guns to your face. Are taxes "theft"? Well of course. But they're the price you pay for a civil society. It's the price you paid to guarantee that you had an education growing up, that your parents wouldn't need to worry about medical bills when they got into old age, and that you could actually keep most of the property that you earned. No one is making you stay.
Im really glad you say this. Good to see that you are able to differentiabe between the definition of a term, and whether its actually a good or bad thing. Because I never said that you can't be off the convincing that theft can't be justified. Its a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
