|
On May 03 2012 06:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Your missing the point. Im not asking whether you are a slave or not. Im asking whether you are a voluntary part of this system.
The question you could be asking (if you find it nessacary) is how "voluntary" should be defined (because that is what is being discussed as Billtheunderstudy apparently finds that taxes are voluntary as he happily pays his taxes).
If you read my post you will see that I never asked whether taxes makes you a slave or not. No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it. Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes.
Im not sure if 3 really is even a theoreitcal option.
But according to you, as long as people has some kind of theoretical oppurtunity (even though they are practically impossible) to avoid taxes, then taxes are voluntary?
So my question is now. When does something become involuntary?
If your getting tortured, isn't it possible for you to force your self to stop brething, hence kill your self?
I can't really imagine any scenario where something becoems involuntary according to your definition.
|
On May 03 2012 06:54 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:49 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary? Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract?? I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic. Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community. I dont think that really answered my question? Im not saying your a slave. Im asking that in the above scenario if the "slaves" (or citizens - whatever you call them), are "slaves" voluntary? And if they aren't, why not? Look, you miss the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_ContractThat will really help you to understand what the word citizen means and why your analogy is a huge fallacy. I am only asking questions. Is it involuntary for the slaves if they can't "exit" their contracts? But if they have the abillity to join another slave lord, then it becomes voluntary? Suppose you lived in the woods with no civilization or government. Your options are to hunt/gather for food or to starve to death. Since your options are work or death, does that mean you are a slave? And if so, aren't all living beings born into slavery, except for the wealthy?
Im not gonna go into a slavery debate. Seems pointless if one doesn't agree that taxes aren't voluntary.
|
On May 03 2012 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Your missing the point. Im not asking whether you are a slave or not. Im asking whether you are a voluntary part of this system.
The question you could be asking (if you find it nessacary) is how "voluntary" should be defined (because that is what is being discussed as Billtheunderstudy apparently finds that taxes are voluntary as he happily pays his taxes).
If you read my post you will see that I never asked whether taxes makes you a slave or not. No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it. Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? Ok we got your ultra right wing anarchist argument. See nobody in this debate and basically nobody in this country is an Ayn Rand supporter. No, taxes are not theft and you are the only one here to consider state as an evil organization conspirating to keep people in slavery.
http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp
....If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.
|
Oh dear, it appears the thread has been thoroughly hijacked.
I'm gonna get some popcorn ready for the Biff/kwizach vs. Hider/Wegandi war, unless the mods put an end to the fun.
|
I hope not, i find it rather enjoyable so far
Can kinda agree with hider, technically i guess
We all are slaves of the majority, thats how democracy works.
Not a bad thing btw, still better then to be slave of the minority or to be completely free in an anarchistic society.
About the elections:
Hollande made a suprisingly good impression on me
Still hope zarkozy will win, stability is what we need in the current crisis and a turn to the left now could lead to wrong monetary policys.
|
On May 03 2012 06:56 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:41 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it.
Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes. Im not sure if 3 really is even a theoreitcal option. But according to you, as long as people has some kind of theoretical oppurtunity (even though they are practically impossible) to avoid taxes, then taxes are voluntary? So my question is now. When does something become involuntary? If your getting tortured, isn't it possible for you to force your self to stop brething, hence kill your self? I can't really imagine any scenario where something becoems involuntary according to your definition.
By the very terms of your imaginary scenario, everything rests on choice. Is the choice to live not a choice?
|
Actually, this whole slave debate does not makes any sense and is absolutely not topic related.
Edit : Ok, I shouldn't have quoted you. I will use PM and hope you will delete your messages that are not topic relevant.
|
On May 03 2012 07:11 Rassy wrote:
I hope not, i find it rather enjoyable so far
Can kinda agree with hider, technically i guess
We all are slaves of the majority, thats how democracy works.
Not a bad thing btw, still better then to be slave of the minority or to be completely free in an anarchistic society.
Im glad you can distinct your political opinion and the "theoretical" use of terms.
Though I still haven't gotton into a debate on whether we are slaves are not. I think one could make a case that a slave stops becomming a slave when he gets the oppurtunity to work for him self (to some degree) and is allowed to own private property. This means that we aren't slaves today. But thats a "definition question", and I think either part could be right.
But I definitely feel that taxes are involuntary and should be considered theft. This still doesn't mean that one can't justfiy taxes through an utilitarian POV.
|
On May 03 2012 07:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:56 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world.
But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes. Im not sure if 3 really is even a theoreitcal option. But according to you, as long as people has some kind of theoretical oppurtunity (even though they are practically impossible) to avoid taxes, then taxes are voluntary? So my question is now. When does something become involuntary? If your getting tortured, isn't it possible for you to force your self to stop brething, hence kill your self? I can't really imagine any scenario where something becoems involuntary according to your definition. By the very terms of your imaginary scenario, everything rests on choice. Is the choice to live not a choice?
Yeh I guess choosing to live or not is a choice. But let me get this straight: Are you implying that nothing can ever be involuntary?
If not, can you give me one example?
|
This is sliding very fast into Freshman Philosophy territory.
|
On May 03 2012 07:17 VyingsP wrote:Actually, this whole slave debate does not makes any sense and is absolutely not topic related. Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 07:00 Wegandi wrote:
....If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. For this part for exemple, I am so utterly confused. The sentences make it look like there are logical links when there are in fact none. Maybe it is just my bad understanding of english, but this whole debate seems completely nonsense to me.
You can't have a right to life if the means to life are qualified, or in other words, needing to seek permission. This means, property is as much a necessary to life as is life itself. For example, how can you have a right to life, if the right to property is denied, in that all the products of your labor are taken from you? You can't, and thus, you become a slave to whomever, or whatever institution is doing the taking. Perhaps it is your poor english understand, or perhaps further a poor understanding of logic, but whatever it is, property and life are inseparable, and any person or persons acting either on their own or through an organization that takes from you against your will (compulsory) is an act of robbery, and when institutionalized arises a serf class and the expropriating class or in laymen's terms the political class.
This is why in any society that has a State institution you have qualified 'ownership', but it in fact, is merely renter-ship of your own body, and the products of your body (property). Fail to pay the compulsory property tax and your home is repossessed by the State, and this tax is in toto. No one truly owns one property, the State does, just as the chattel slave never owned his abode his master did. The State is the master in our societies. The Income Tax is the claim of the State to our bodies, our labor, and our time, just as the slave-master did. None of these things have gone away, its simply the master tolerating a little more freedom amongst its 'cattle' so-to-speak, but we are not free.
Democracy is not freedom. Voting a new master every four years, but never being allowed to get rid of the master in the first place, is definitely not freedom. Sure, it's better than being a serf in the USSR, or in Nazi Germany, but it's still intolerable and completely unethical.
I wonder if you would be saying the same things if Wal-Mart was the State, and they had armed thugs (their version of the IRS) to come around kidnap you and lock you in jail if you failed to pay for their compulsory services even if you never wanted them in the first place -- remember, they claim a monopoly and use force and violence to stop any competition.
I think you would be singing a different tune, but somehow the State is a mystical entity which is beyond the ethical system everyone in society falls under. Somehow violence and coercion is good if the State does. Robbery is good if the State does it. Enslavement is good if the State does it. Rationalize away.
|
On May 03 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 07:13 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:56 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you?
I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes. Im not sure if 3 really is even a theoreitcal option. But according to you, as long as people has some kind of theoretical oppurtunity (even though they are practically impossible) to avoid taxes, then taxes are voluntary? So my question is now. When does something become involuntary? If your getting tortured, isn't it possible for you to force your self to stop brething, hence kill your self? I can't really imagine any scenario where something becoems involuntary according to your definition. By the very terms of your imaginary scenario, everything rests on choice. Is the choice to live not a choice? Yeh I guess choosing to live or not is a choice. But let me get this straight: Are you implying that nothing can ever be involuntary? If not, can you give me one example?
Sure, here's an example. Let's say I cross a stranger. The stranger decides to slap me from my blind-spot - I can't do anything about it. I was not aware of his intention and therefore could not choose between getting slapped and not getting slapped.
|
So are French debates usually negative, like American or British politics?
|
On May 03 2012 09:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So are French debates usually negative, like American or British politics?
From the sounds of it, Hollande spent the whole time harping on Sarkozy, but I'm still waiting for the video
|
On May 03 2012 06:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary? Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract?? I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic. Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community. I dont think that really answered my question? Im not saying your a slave. Im asking that in the above scenario if the "slaves" (or citizens - whatever you call them), are "slaves" voluntary? And if they aren't, why not? Look, you miss the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_ContractThat will really help you to understand what the word citizen means and why your analogy is a huge fallacy. I am only asking questions. Is it involuntary for the slaves if they can't "exit" their contracts? But if they have the abillity to join another slave lord, then it becomes voluntary?
Fun fact: human is a social animal.
Maybe you didn't notice? We don't live in the jungle.
|
On May 03 2012 09:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So are French debates usually negative, like American or British politics?
Very little has been said, the candidates remain vague and try to gain the upper hand on generaliztions and borderline ad hominem attacks.
They speak of things 80% of France does not understand, negociating billions and trying to look sincere when they make broad promises.
I believe Hollande had the upper hand, suprizingly ; not because he's a great debater, but because Sarkozy has been quoted in number of infamous affairs lately : Karachi, Bettencourt, Khadafi (illegal foundings) and as such, it was easy for Hollande to be agressive and sometimes corner him, forcing him to outright lie.
On the field of ideas, very little has been said and both use advantageous numbers to support their claims. A sterile and somewhat boring event.
|
Personellement j'ai une envie que Sarkozy remporte cette éléction.
Hollande n'est pas celui qu'il nous faut.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 03 2012 07:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it.
Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? Ok we got your ultra right wing anarchist argument. See nobody in this debate and basically nobody in this country is an Ayn Rand supporter. No, taxes are not theft and you are the only one here to consider state as an evil organization conspirating to keep people in slavery. http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp....If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor.
what lol
First of all I don't think rights exist, secondly I don't have to grant you the right to own the things you make just because you are allowed to live.
|
|
|
On May 03 2012 11:05 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 07:00 Wegandi wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world.
But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? Ok we got your ultra right wing anarchist argument. See nobody in this debate and basically nobody in this country is an Ayn Rand supporter. No, taxes are not theft and you are the only one here to consider state as an evil organization conspirating to keep people in slavery. http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp....If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. what lol First of all I don't think rights exist, secondly I don't have to grant you the right to own the things you make just because you are allowed to live.
Libertarian philosophy is so naive, simplistic, idealistic and ultimately broken that it's basically useless to even discuss it. It's like when you discuss with hardcore communists, you end up in completely abstract debates that don't connect whatsoever with reality. This reasoning is basically John Locke taken as if it was the bible. It's level 0 of interpretation of liberal philosophy.
Read Ayn Rand, it's very interesting. She is a master of logical fallacy, but she is so convinced and fanatical about her private property thing and anti-statism that she almost manages to be convincing.
Ignoring blatantly that private property can be a source of tyranny just as much as State abuses is so naive that it gives headache. Their definition of freedom is so formal, so "pure" that it loses all meaning.
Just think about it: for a libertarian, you are more free if you can't afford an education and can't afford a healthcare than if a free education and healthcare do exist and that you have access to it. For a libertarian you are more free if you starve to death than if there is a State program that will make sure it won't happen.
Ignoring that freedom is not only about "doing what you want with nobody telling you what to do", but that on the opposite freedom is a very complex notion that includes being able to think, to have access to the necessary to live decently, etc etc... makes it a completely empty concept. 2500 years of philosophy have tried to define freedom, and they come with a completely negative and formal concept that looks like a dictionary definition and make it the touchstone for their whole political system.
It's really saddening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
