Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is taxation morally permissible?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).

By and large, that depends on your morality. Those with a more utilitarian perspective would generally consider taxation moral; those who are egotists or nihilists would not. I see taxation as a fundamental aspect of society. Taxation is not theft, as it provides for everyone - roads, schools, police, etc. All of those and more are funded through taxation. One can argue that all of these can be provided privately, which is true, if you're seeking to build a society for only the wealthy.
miles-pro-libertate
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:01:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think that some taxation is moral, and only if both of the following criteria are met: the governed give consent to be taxed, and the tax is voluntary. What I mean by voluntary is that it is a tax on something that you choose to do. Income tax is an involuntary tax; you have no choice in the matter, the government takes X% of your income no matter what. A road toll is a voluntary tax; you only pay it if you use the road.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:16:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
By almost any moral standard the state is immoral. By almost any economic principle the state is economically destructive. The hatred of politicians is the butt of many jokes; deep down, people know the political system is broken, but they keep making the same mistakes in grabbing the gun of the state and attempting to solve complex social problems using a method so far out of date, people can't even be honest with themselves about just what it is: a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

People see the police brutality videos, the experience the pain of no-knock raids and TSA sexual assault, they understand that government bureaucrats are incompetent, they rely on private companies for roadside assistance, food, and clothing, they hate the DMV, they hate the further usurpation of their human rights to life, liberty, and property.

They understand and accept all of this and more, but they cannot let go of the myth that the state is a force for good in the world.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:16:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

They understand and accept all of this and more, but they cannot let go of the myth that the state is a force for good in the world.

All the moralising and idealistic hogwash can go out the window in the face of empirical evidence.

Bismarckian Germany and Meiji Japan (1868-1912) both experienced extremely rapid economic modernisation, and both were noted for the unusually heavy involvement of government. In the case of Meiji Japan, economic historians nearly universally agree that the government's program of infrastructure facilitated economic growth. There is also significant evidence that private entrepreneurs were hesitant to invest in new technologies at the time; for instance, the Tomioka spinning mill required government officials to offer up their daughters to work there before citizens considered the enterprise safe.

I challenge you to support the notion that the state was detrimental in Meiji Japan. I challenge you to refute the dozens of JSTOR articles, university textbooks, and economic databases that say otherwise. Don't believe me? Let's debate the topic. I ought to know about the era considering a major work of mine is an extended essay on the topic of government's role in economic modernisation from 1868-1905. Either challenge the empirical evidence, or quit proselytising.

And also, how do you explain the economic upturn in Germany from 1933-1936 while discrediting government involvement? There is a noticeable change in government involvement... and a noticeable improvement in the economy. That the government was responsible for all the improvement is of course false. But, it was responsible for some of it. Again, challenge the empirical evidence.

The moral issue of taxation is another matter, but I think that any form of utilitarian or consequentialist outlook easily resolves that matter. Need I mention that city states could not withstand empires and that's why nation-states evolved? Any state without taxation is doomed to subjugation over the long run. And, on the other hand, hegemonic states are a force for peace in international politics... There is also the matter of traditional honour systems and solidarity and such.

First though, my examples of societies need to be deconstructed though.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 1:55:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:16:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
By almost any moral standard the state is immoral. By almost any economic principle the state is economically destructive. The hatred of politicians is the butt of many jokes; deep down, people know the political system is broken, but they keep making the same mistakes in grabbing the gun of the state and attempting to solve complex social problems using a method so far out of date, people can't even be honest with themselves about just what it is: a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

People see the police brutality videos, the experience the pain of no-knock raids and TSA sexual assault, they understand that government bureaucrats are incompetent, they rely on private companies for roadside assistance, food, and clothing, they hate the DMV, they hate the further usurpation of their human rights to life, liberty, and property.

They understand and accept all of this and more, but they cannot let go of the myth that the state is a force for good in the world.

Here you have completely ignored endarkenedrationalist's post in #2, which addresses all of your alleged complaints.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:45:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).

And I would argue that.... YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and for the right reasons [+ 20x points]. Congratulations here let me shake your hand.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 9:09:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).

By and large, that depends on your morality. Those with a more utilitarian perspective would generally consider taxation moral

Based on immeasurable quantities... utilitarianism is the root fallacy of communism and even though this is not the primary reason it is wrong, I have never seen any reason to believe in a 'sweet zone' between property rights and from each according to... yada yada.

those who are egotists or nihilists would not.

Forgetting some aren't we? Theistic and objectivist ethics maybe?

I see taxation as a fundamental aspect of society.

I see taxation as a fundamental sin of all known governments, but never have I seen a good argument that it is a necessary one.

Taxation is not theft, as it provides for everyone - roads, schools, police, etc. All of those and more are funded through taxation.

The ends do not justify the means, and the definition of theft does not require that that which is stolen is used in a way that could not possibly benefit the victim.

One can argue that all of these can be provided privately, which is true, if you're seeking to build a society for only the wealthy.

Wealth is relative, morality isn't. If only the wealthy can survive equal rights then let only the wealthy survive, there is no more fundamental value than liberty.

At 2/17/2014 1:55:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2014 10:16:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
By almost any moral standard the state is immoral. By almost any economic principle the state is economically destructive. The hatred of politicians is the butt of many jokes; deep down, people know the political system is broken, but they keep making the same mistakes in grabbing the gun of the state and attempting to solve complex social problems using a method so far out of date, people can't even be honest with themselves about just what it is: a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

People see the police brutality videos, the experience the pain of no-knock raids and TSA sexual assault, they understand that government bureaucrats are incompetent, they rely on private companies for roadside assistance, food, and clothing, they hate the DMV, they hate the further usurpation of their human rights to life, liberty, and property.

They understand and accept all of this and more, but they cannot let go of the myth that the state is a force for good in the world.

Here you have completely ignored endarkenedrationalist's post in #2, which addresses all of your alleged complaints.

As if I needed more proof that you have no idea what addressing something even means. It's not posting something totally unrelated logically but topically related so that idiots nod their heads and say "that sounds about right."

He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 1:01:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

At 2/17/2014 1:55:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2014 10:16:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
By almost any moral standard the state is immoral. By almost any economic principle the state is economically destructive. The hatred of politicians is the butt of many jokes; deep down, people know the political system is broken, but they keep making the same mistakes in grabbing the gun of the state and attempting to solve complex social problems using a method so far out of date, people can't even be honest with themselves about just what it is: a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

People see the police brutality videos, the experience the pain of no-knock raids and TSA sexual assault, they understand that government bureaucrats are incompetent, they rely on private companies for roadside assistance, food, and clothing, they hate the DMV, they hate the further usurpation of their human rights to life, liberty, and property.

They understand and accept all of this and more, but they cannot let go of the myth that the state is a force for good in the world.

Here you have completely ignored endarkenedrationalist's post in #2, which addresses all of your alleged complaints.

As if I needed more proof that you have no idea what addressing something even means. It's not posting something totally unrelated logically but topically related so that idiots nod their heads and say "that sounds about right."

This above comment is a conduct violation, and I have reported it.

He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.

His point is that it's not "immoral"...you cannot make that blanket statement, that is an argument, and IMHO he is correct.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 1:06:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 1:01:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.

His point is that it's not "immoral"...you cannot make that blanket statement, that is an argument,

Was that his conclusion or one of his premises, because I didn't see any premises.

and IMHO he is correct.

Your honest opinion is faulty on every level I care to imagine.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 1:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 1:06:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:01:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.

His point is that it's not "immoral"...you cannot make that blanket statement, that is an argument,

Was that his conclusion or one of his premises, because I didn't see any premises.

The premises are assumed, there's no need to go into the various philosophical aspects of subjective morality.

and IMHO he is correct.

Your honest opinion is faulty on every level I care to imagine.

Another conduct violation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 1:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 1:08:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:06:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:01:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.

His point is that it's not "immoral"...you cannot make that blanket statement, that is an argument,

Was that his conclusion or one of his premises, because I didn't see any premises.

The premises are assumed

Really? Well then here is my argument that taxation is immoral:

Taxation is immoral.

Guess that about wraps it up doesn't it? Or is the next step a poll to tap into the thundering truth that is a crowd shouting?

there's no need to go into the various philosophical aspects of subjective morality.

If you want to make an argument there is. You can't say "This is delicious, but taste is subjective so it's only delicious to me [but I am still going to stuff it down your throat].

Your honest opinion is faulty on every level I care to imagine.

Another conduct violation.

Just keep reporting them ;)
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 1:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 1:15:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:08:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:06:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:01:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.

His point is that it's not "immoral"...you cannot make that blanket statement, that is an argument,

Was that his conclusion or one of his premises, because I didn't see any premises.

The premises are assumed

Really? Well then here is my argument that taxation is immoral:

Taxation is immoral.

Guess that about wraps it up doesn't it? Or is the next step a poll to tap into the thundering truth that is a crowd shouting?

ER also states that taxation is a fundamental aspect of society to justify its morality under a utilitarian calculus.

there's no need to go into the various philosophical aspects of subjective morality.

If you want to make an argument there is. You can't say "This is delicious, but taste is subjective so it's only delicious to me [but I am still going to stuff it down your throat].

The underlined is exactly what the OP is attempting to do with his blanket assertion that taxation is immoral.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 2:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
By almost any moral standard the state is immoral.

States are a basic expression of collective human action. States often act immorally because humans often act immoraly. That doesn't mean that collective achievement must be immoral or that every purpose achieved collective must be immoral- Space exploration, for example, or Salk's polio vaccine.

Nor should it be believed that the disposal of state would translate into a reduction of taxes or theft, quite the opposite. In tribes of less than 50 individuals, the average contribution of any member to the collective pot runs about 70-75%- twice the highest avg. tax rates in the US. Smaller groups can achieve smaller taxes, but only at the cost substantially increased investments of time in food production. Of course, without the securities and guarantees of state, theft is probably the defining characteristic of any Anarchical time period.

Valid criticism of state and tax is all very good, but few critics offer much in the way of appealing alternatives. How would wallstathiest's brave new world work, I wonder. Consider that the stock market is an abstract of capitalism, requiring the security of the market, the stability of currency, the rationalization of price in the absence of threat. Wall Street would not endure to see the sun set on the first day of any true anarchy.

Atheism, too, is a reflection of the protections of the state. Were the Bill of Rights forgotten on a Tuesday in Texas, say, I doubt we'd have to wait for Friday before a preacher with a shotgun knocked upon our door. However deeply religion has infused the state with legitimacy and justified the state's worst atrocities, we do well to remember that humans had priests longs before kings. In fact, there are few times and places in history where a man's religion was his own to choose, at least few men could thrive without the temple's endorsement.

For what configuration absent state and tax OP advocates, I cannot tell. Just know it needs to be far more clever than any and many earlier blind and fruitless anarchical stabs at utopia.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 5:59:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 1:19:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:15:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:08:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:06:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:01:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.

His point is that it's not "immoral"...you cannot make that blanket statement, that is an argument,

Was that his conclusion or one of his premises, because I didn't see any premises.

The premises are assumed

Really? Well then here is my argument that taxation is immoral:

Taxation is immoral.

Guess that about wraps it up doesn't it? Or is the next step a poll to tap into the thundering truth that is a crowd shouting?

ER also states that taxation is a fundamental aspect of society to justify its morality under a utilitarian calculus.

I stated it wasn't. I also stated that utilitarian calculus is little more than a joke since it has no measurements to work with much less do calculus on.

there's no need to go into the various philosophical aspects of subjective morality.

If you want to make an argument there is. You can't say "This is delicious, but taste is subjective so it's only delicious to me [but I am still going to stuff it down your throat].

The underlined is exactly what the OP is attempting to do with his blanket assertion that taxation is immoral.

As the OP pointed out, it is the collective via the state that threatens (and actually uses) force. Therefore it is the one doing the stuffing, and if it can't come up with an objective reason then it has no justification what so ever because it's subjective values only justify it's actions in the delusional world it created for itself.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:13:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:09:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).

By and large, that depends on your morality. Those with a more utilitarian perspective would generally consider taxation moral

Based on immeasurable quantities... utilitarianism is the root fallacy of communism and even though this is not the primary reason it is wrong, I have never seen any reason to believe in a 'sweet zone' between property rights and from each according to... yada yada.

Yes, you can draw that parallel between utilitarianism and communism, particularly if you haven't done significant study of the 2. I thought you might like communism, Liberty, considering it's not supposed to even have a government. A true communist society has never existed.

those who are egotists or nihilists would not.

Forgetting some aren't we? Theistic and objectivist ethics maybe?

How would theistic ethics object to it?

As for Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy, I place zero credit in her. She considers it perfectly moral for firemen to let you and your house burn because they gain nothing by helping.

I see taxation as a fundamental aspect of society.

I see taxation as a fundamental sin of all known governments, but never have I seen a good argument that it is a necessary one.

How would civil society function without taxation?

Taxation is not theft, as it provides for everyone - roads, schools, police, etc. All of those and more are funded through taxation.

The ends do not justify the means, and the definition of theft does not require that that which is stolen is used in a way that could not possibly benefit the victim.

I believe the ends do justify the means. See? I can state opinions too. The "victims" in this scenario are also dependent on society to make any money in the first place. It's hardly wrong for society to take some back in order to benefit everyone else, both in the present and future.

One can argue that all of these can be provided privately, which is true, if you're seeking to build a society for only the wealthy.

Wealth is relative, morality isn't. If only the wealthy can survive equal rights then let only the wealthy survive, there is no more fundamental value than liberty.

Morality is relative. We hit this roadblock again.

At 2/17/2014 1:55:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2014 10:16:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
By almost any moral standard the state is immoral. By almost any economic principle the state is economically destructive. The hatred of politicians is the butt of many jokes; deep down, people know the political system is broken, but they keep making the same mistakes in grabbing the gun of the state and attempting to solve complex social problems using a method so far out of date, people can't even be honest with themselves about just what it is: a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

People see the police brutality videos, the experience the pain of no-knock raids and TSA sexual assault, they understand that government bureaucrats are incompetent, they rely on private companies for roadside assistance, food, and clothing, they hate the DMV, they hate the further usurpation of their human rights to life, liberty, and property.

They understand and accept all of this and more, but they cannot let go of the myth that the state is a force for good in the world.

Here you have completely ignored endarkenedrationalist's post in #2, which addresses all of your alleged complaints.

As if I needed more proof that you have no idea what addressing something even means. It's not posting something totally unrelated logically but topically related so that idiots nod their heads and say "that sounds about right."

He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:48:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:13:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:09:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).

By and large, that depends on your morality. Those with a more utilitarian perspective would generally consider taxation moral

Based on immeasurable quantities... utilitarianism is the root fallacy of communism and even though this is not the primary reason it is wrong, I have never seen any reason to believe in a 'sweet zone' between property rights and from each according to... yada yada.

Yes, you can draw that parallel between utilitarianism and communism, particularly if you haven't done significant study of the 2. I thought you might like communism, Liberty, considering it's not supposed to even have a government.

I reject the false dichotomy between government and liberty. Government is necessary to defend liberty, it only acts as its destroyer due to the ignorance or incompetence of those running the show (which in a democracy are in fact the majority population).

A true communist society has never existed.

That card? Well a true capitalist society has never existed.

If you can get a 'communist' to agree to a volitional society they're alright by me.

those who are egotists or nihilists would not.

Forgetting some aren't we? Theistic and objectivist ethics maybe?

How would theistic ethics object to it?
Didn't say it would, but a hell of a lot more people believe in it than nihilism or egotism [assuming that is just another word for might-makes righters]

As for Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy, I place zero credit in her.

Luckily she, like me, don't ask for credit we demand rationality. Deal with the logic, trusting authority is uniquely not the province of objectivism so you're barking up the wrong tree.

She considers it perfectly moral for firemen to let you and your house burn because they gain nothing by helping.

You consider it perfectly unchallengeable if the firemen do let you and your house burn to the ground, after all what's moral to you may not be moral to them right?

I see taxation as a fundamental aspect of society.

I see taxation as a fundamental sin of all known governments, but never have I seen a good argument that it is a necessary one.

How would civil society function without taxation?

Charge the people who used the roads for the roads, charge the people who use the electricity for the electricity (yes I know they do, see the apocalypse didn't come), charge them for the water, the telephones, the parks. Charge them for every service that you can possible exclude them from.

The remaining services are non-excludable. Another sub division: For those services where there is no rivalry in consumption (say a light house or a radio transmission) there is no problem. All you need are (likely) minimal voluntary donations.

For those services in which there is rivalry in consumption yet they cannot be practically offered to just some citizens (non-excludable). Utilize voluntary funding (donations). Implement small locality as much as possible to avoid the free-rider problem while providing for seamless networking of the larger network (to prevent dead zones in the service as well as keep efficiency high). Primary examples: fire department, police, EMTs.

Yes it would work, provided people could pledge funding far enough in advance to plan for efficient scale up scale down operations. With modern technology it's a virtual piece of cake.

And YES if some people refuse to pay, it's ok to cut down on their service even from the police and fire department. It's morally far superior to let them face the consequences of their lack of fore sight than to lock them up for not playing as a team.

Taxation is not theft, as it provides for everyone - roads, schools, police, etc. All of those and more are funded through taxation.

The ends do not justify the means, and the definition of theft does not require that that which is stolen is used in a way that could not possibly benefit the victim.

I believe the ends do justify the means. See? I can state opinions too. The "victims" in this scenario are also dependent on society to make any money in the first place. It's hardly wrong for society to take some back in order to benefit everyone else, both in the present and future.

One can argue that all of these can be provided privately, which is true, if you're seeking to build a society for only the wealthy.

Wealth is relative, morality isn't. If only the wealthy can survive equal rights then let only the wealthy survive, there is no more fundamental value than liberty.

Morality is relative. We hit this roadblock again.

Unlike last time, nothing to do first. If morality is relative then there is no objective case for taxation being moral correct?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:48:36 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:13:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:09:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).

By and large, that depends on your morality. Those with a more utilitarian perspective would generally consider taxation moral

Based on immeasurable quantities... utilitarianism is the root fallacy of communism and even though this is not the primary reason it is wrong, I have never seen any reason to believe in a 'sweet zone' between property rights and from each according to... yada yada.

Yes, you can draw that parallel between utilitarianism and communism, particularly if you haven't done significant study of the 2. I thought you might like communism, Liberty, considering it's not supposed to even have a government.

I reject the false dichotomy between government and liberty. Government is necessary to defend liberty, it only acts as its destroyer due to the ignorance or incompetence of those running the show (which in a democracy are in fact the majority population).

You just think people have more liberties than they do.

A true communist society has never existed.

That card? Well a true capitalist society has never existed.

And thank God for that.

If you can get a 'communist' to agree to a volitional society they're alright by me.

those who are egotists or nihilists would not.

Forgetting some aren't we? Theistic and objectivist ethics maybe?

How would theistic ethics object to it?
Didn't say it would, but a hell of a lot more people believe in it than nihilism or egotism [assuming that is just another word for might-makes righters]

As for Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy, I place zero credit in her.

Luckily she, like me, don't ask for credit we demand rationality. Deal with the logic, trusting authority is uniquely not the province of objectivism so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Ayn Rand has little logic, so there's really nothing to deal with. Not to mention that nobody who lived under a government that committed gross atrocities (as well as things that affected her personally) has a right to call their philosophy "objectivism." Her experience reveals that it is anything but.

She considers it perfectly moral for firemen to let you and your house burn because they gain nothing by helping.

You consider it perfectly unchallengeable if the firemen do let you and your house burn to the ground, after all what's moral to you may not be moral to them right?

It's their job, which I, with my tax dollars, pay for. Morals don't enter the equation.

I see taxation as a fundamental aspect of society.

I see taxation as a fundamental sin of all known governments, but never have I seen a good argument that it is a necessary one.

How would civil society function without taxation?

Charge the people who used the roads for the roads, charge the people who use the electricity for the electricity (yes I know they do, see the apocalypse didn't come), charge them for the water, the telephones, the parks. Charge them for every service that you can possible exclude them from.

So privatise everything, because screw people who aren't rich.

The remaining services are non-excludable. Another sub division: For those services where there is no rivalry in consumption (say a light house or a radio transmission) there is no problem. All you need are (likely) minimal voluntary donations.

For those services in which there is rivalry in consumption yet they cannot be practically offered to just some citizens (non-excludable). Utilize voluntary funding (donations). Implement small locality as much as possible to avoid the free-rider problem while providing for seamless networking of the larger network (to prevent dead zones in the service as well as keep efficiency high). Primary examples: fire department, police, EMTs.

Yes it would work, provided people could pledge funding far enough in advance to plan for efficient scale up scale down operations. With modern technology it's a virtual piece of cake.

No, this would never work. This would rapidly become a "gated community" available only to the wealthiest members of society. Not to mention that most people, not being rich, would never go for this. People are far more reluctant to part with money than you give them credit for.

And YES if some people refuse to pay, it's ok to cut down on their service even from the police and fire department. It's morally far superior to let them face the consequences of their lack of fore sight than to lock them up for not playing as a team.

Or you can do a more humane thing and not build society around survival of the fittest.

Taxation is not theft, as it provides for everyone - roads, schools, police, etc. All of those and more are funded through taxation.

The ends do not justify the means, and the definition of theft does not require that that which is stolen is used in a way that could not possibly benefit the victim.

I believe the ends do justify the means. See? I can state opinions too. The "victims" in this scenario are also dependent on society to make any money in the first place. It's hardly wrong for society to take some back in order to benefit everyone else, both in the present and future.

One can argue that all of these can be provided privately, which is true, if you're seeking to build a society for only the wealthy.

Wealth is relative, morality isn't. If only the wealthy can survive equal rights then let only the wealthy survive, there is no more fundamental value than liberty.

Morality is relative. We hit this roadblock again.

Unlike last time, nothing to do first. If morality is relative then there is no objective case for taxation being moral correct?

Once again, your insane belief that everything relates to morality is just that. But even running with that, sure, there is no objective moral case for taxation being morally correct. But something does not have to be morally correct to work, or even to be correct. Privatising everything would be disastrous for society; I state this independently of morals. Taxation provides for both the government and the general public; I state this independently of morals.

The only place our morals come into play is regarding the individual, which you value to astronomic levels.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:25:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wsa, yer asking the wrong questions.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:58:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hmm, is taxation morally permissible? Oy vey! Would Americans adopting the egoistic ideology of "libertarianism" en masse and existing like utterly socially-autonomous and atomized islands unto themselves, making no contribution whatsoever to the financial maintenance of their society and its public institutions, be morally acceptable or sane?!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:01:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:09:45 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:48:36 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I reject the false dichotomy between government and liberty. Government is necessary to defend liberty, it only acts as its destroyer due to the ignorance or incompetence of those running the show (which in a democracy are in fact the majority population).

You just think people have more liberties than they do.

I 'just' think they deserve more liberty than they have.

A true communist society has never existed.

That card? Well a true capitalist society has never existed.

And thank God for that.

I thank/blame ignorance for that.

As for Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy, I place zero credit in her.

Luckily she, like me, don't ask for credit we demand rationality. Deal with the logic, trusting authority is uniquely not the province of objectivism so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Ayn Rand has little logic, so there's really nothing to deal with.

Where I have heard that before? Oh yea, from the swarms of people who give up when they can't deal with the logic.

Not to mention that nobody who lived under a government that committed gross atrocities (as well as things that affected her personally) has a right to call
their philosophy "objectivism." Her experience reveals that it is anything but.

Thinking inside the box there ER, being objective means experiences don't change the logic. Besides, she could say that nobody who hasn't lived under a government that committed gross atrocities and seen how people thought to justify it to themselves could speak knowledgeably about the dangerous thought patterns of collectivism.

She considers it perfectly moral for firemen to let you and your house burn because they gain nothing by helping.

You consider it perfectly unchallengeable if the firemen do let you and your house burn to the ground, after all what's moral to you may not be moral to them right?

It's their job, which I, with my tax dollars, pay for. Morals don't enter the equation.

Rofl, did you even think about that? If you're paying them then they gain something by helping. Got an answer that doesn't lead straight back to objectivism back there?

I see taxation as a fundamental aspect of society.

I see taxation as a fundamental sin of all known governments, but never have I seen a good argument that it is a necessary one.

How would civil society function without taxation?

Charge the people who used the roads for the roads, charge the people who use the electricity for the electricity (yes I know they do, see the apocalypse didn't come), charge them for the water, the telephones, the parks. Charge them for every service that you can possible exclude them from.

So privatise everything, because screw people who aren't rich.

Screw theft, I don't care if the thieves are rich, poor, or numerous.

Yes it would work, provided people could pledge funding far enough in advance to plan for efficient scale up scale down operations. With modern technology it's a virtual piece of cake.

No, this would never work. This would rapidly become a "gated community" available only to the wealthiest members of society.

Because only the wealthy can afford police, EMTs, and firefighters?

Not to mention that most people, not being rich, would never go for this.

That's why they aren't objectivist, they make moral decisions based on how much money they have... or on their skin colour is, on their sexual orientation, on their faith, on their nationality. One can choose to be objective though, so there is some glimmer of hope.. given enough time propaganda or... force.

People are far more reluctant to part with money than you give them credit for.

They seem to vote for taxes just fine, you saying they can't put their money where their mouth is? Do you need to be forced to pay your 'fair' share?

And YES if some people refuse to pay, it's ok to cut down on their service even from the police and fire department. It's morally far superior to let them face the consequences of their lack of fore sight than to lock them up for not playing as a team.

Or you can do a more humane thing and not build society around survival of the fittest.

By what right do you describe the shackling of fellow men 'human'? When did we become something so disgusting?

You want to be compassionate? You pay for those people even though they didn't think they needed it. Using force on them because you don't think they know how to take care of themselves is anything but 'human'.

Morality is relative. We hit this roadblock again.

Unlike last time, nothing to do first. If morality is relative then there is no objective case for taxation being moral correct?

Once again, your insane belief that everything relates to morality is just that.

Once again, the fact that you don't think the things we have been discussing do requires an complete ignorance of the definition of morality and some basic critical thought.

But even running with that, sure, there is no objective moral case for taxation being morally correct.

So you don't claim the use of force to tax is justified?

Privatising everything would be disastrous for society; I state this independently of morals. Taxation provides for both the government and the general public; I state this independently of morals.

What you cannot state independent of morals is "we should not privatize everything" or "we should provide for both the government and general public."

The only place our morals come into play is regarding the individual

Exactly, no collective sins independent of individuals, no collective virtue independent of individuals, no collective rights independent of individuals.

, which you value to astronomic levels.

Individuals are all I see, I cannot value a category anymore than I value the sum of its members.

I believe the ends do justify the means. See? I can state opinions too.

Then I'll kill you, and that way I get my way. See? My threats are more direct than yours but no more real.

The "victims" in this scenario are also dependent on society to make any money in the first place.

We are all dependent on the sun but we do not owe it money. If you cannot demonstrate a debt you have no right to collect it.

It's hardly wrong for society to take some back in order to benefit everyone else, both in the present and future.

Of course it's wrong, 'society' already took back. That's how these people get the money, by giving.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:01:03 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:09:45 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:48:36 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I reject the false dichotomy between government and liberty. Government is necessary to defend liberty, it only acts as its destroyer due to the ignorance or incompetence of those running the show (which in a democracy are in fact the majority population).

That card? Well a true capitalist society has never existed.

And thank God for that.

I thank/blame ignorance for that.


Ayn Rand has little logic, so there's really nothing to deal with.

Where I have heard that before? Oh yea, from the swarms of people who give up when they can't deal with the logic.

Of course you would like Rand, especially because the majority of economists and philosophers alike have rejected her.

Not to mention that nobody who lived under a government that committed gross atrocities (as well as things that affected her personally) has a right to call
their philosophy "objectivism." Her experience reveals that it is anything but.

Thinking inside the box there ER, being objective means experiences don't change the logic. Besides, she could say that nobody who hasn't lived under a government that committed gross atrocities and seen how people thought to justify it to themselves could speak knowledgeably about the dangerous thought patterns of collectivism.

She considers it perfectly moral for firemen to let you and your house burn because they gain nothing by helping.

You consider it perfectly unchallengeable if the firemen do let you and your house burn to the ground, after all what's moral to you may not be moral to them right?

It's their job, which I, with my tax dollars, pay for. Morals don't enter the equation.

Rofl, did you even think about that? If you're paying them then they gain something by helping. Got an answer that doesn't lead straight back to objectivism back there?

You're not paying them without taxation nor under Objectivism. Way to take my argument out of context.


How would civil society function without taxation?

Charge the people who used the roads for the roads, charge the people who use the electricity for the electricity (yes I know they do, see the apocalypse didn't come), charge them for the water, the telephones, the parks. Charge them for every service that you can possible exclude them from.

So privatise everything, because screw people who aren't rich.

Screw theft, I don't care if the thieves are rich, poor, or numerous.

Taxation is not theft. One, nobody succeeds without society. They owe a debt to it, like it or not. Two, society services people. Taxation is a method of buying services.

Yes it would work, provided people could pledge funding far enough in advance to plan for efficient scale up scale down operations. With modern technology it's a virtual piece of cake.

No, this would never work. This would rapidly become a "gated community" available only to the wealthiest members of society.

Because only the wealthy can afford police, EMTs, and firefighters?

If privatised. Imagine private prisons, for instance - suddenly the focus is not guilt or innocence but profit. Private prisons profit by having more inmates. Thus more people will be incarcerated, deserving or no.

Not to mention that most people, not being rich, would never go for this.

That's why they aren't objectivist, they make moral decisions based on how much money they have... or on their skin colour is, on their sexual orientation, on their faith, on their nationality. One can choose to be objective though, so there is some glimmer of hope.. given enough time propaganda or... force.

Objectivists are not objective. To be objective entails realising that the individual is not superior to the collective. Only subjective values elevate the individual for the simple reason that 2 > 1

People are far more reluctant to part with money than you give them credit for.

They seem to vote for taxes just fine, you saying they can't put their money where their mouth is? Do you need to be forced to pay your 'fair' share?

Yes.

And YES if some people refuse to pay, it's ok to cut down on their service even from the police and fire department. It's morally far superior to let them face the consequences of their lack of fore sight than to lock them up for not playing as a team.

Or you can do a more humane thing and not build society around survival of the fittest.

By what right do you describe the shackling of fellow men 'human'? When did we become something so disgusting?

How about the liberating of fellow men from the tyranny of a plutocracy?

You want to be compassionate? You pay for those people even though they didn't think they needed it. Using force on them because you don't think they know how to take care of themselves is anything but 'human'.

Saying screw them all, only I matter (Objectivism in a nutshell) is even worse.

Morality is relative. We hit this roadblock again.

Unlike last time, nothing to do first. If morality is relative then there is no objective case for taxation being moral correct?

Once again, your insane belief that everything relates to morality is just that.

Once again, the fact that you don't think the things we have been discussing do requires an complete ignorance of the definition of morality and some basic critical thought.

What we discuss are two ships passing in the night. I argue within the frame of the system; you do not.

But even running with that, sure, there is no objective moral case for taxation being morally correct.

So you don't claim the use of force to tax is justified?

This is not the same.

Privatising everything would be disastrous for society; I state this independently of morals. Taxation provides for both the government and the general public; I state this independently of morals.

What you cannot state independent of morals is "we should not privatize everything" or "we should provide for both the government and general public."

I stated neither.

The only place our morals come into play is regarding the individual

Exactly, no collective sins independent of individuals, no collective virtue independent of individuals, no collective rights independent of individuals.

This doesn't hold up. 'War' is not 'murder.' Building a bridge' requires a collective effort; building a chair does not.

, which you value to astronomic levels.

Individuals are all I see, I cannot value a category anymore than I value the sum of its members.

That is your - I won't say problem - but lens. Not mine.

I believe the ends do justify the means. See? I can state opinions too.

Then I'll kill you, and that way I get my way. See? My threats are more direct than yours but no more real.

'Means' are only justified by benefitting a collective, not an individual.

The "victims" in this scenario are also dependent on society to make any money in the first place.

We are all dependent on the sun but we do not owe it money. If you cannot demonstrate a debt you have no right to collect it.

The sun is not something that represents us or our interests. The sun is not something that actively and consciously protects us. The sun is not something that intentionally provides us with opportunities. The sun does not demonstrate concern for the people living under it.

It's hardly wrong for society to take some back in order to benefit everyone else, both in the present and future.

Of course it's wrong, 'society' already took back. That's how
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:12:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:23:40 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:01:03 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:09:45 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:48:36 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Of course you would like Rand, especially because the majority of economists and philosophers alike have rejected her.

Calling me a contrarian? :p

Don't you get it yet? It doesn't matter to my beliefs (any of them) what any majority does. Ad populum (and I wouldn't sound like such a broken record if this disgusting perversion didn't permeate the fabric of ignorant thought) is called an informal fallacy for a reason.

You're not paying them without taxation nor under Objectivism. Way to take my argument out of context.

Dodge. Whether through taxation or voluntary payment the firemen are paid to save you. If that is the only objective reason you can think of to do it, if your argument that they are immoral by sitting idle is "but I'd pay them," then you have all but ceded Rand's point.

Taxation is not theft.

False

One, nobody succeeds without society.

Society does not exist without bodies [individuals].

They owe a debt to it, like it or not.

Delusion

Two, society services people.

Society is an abstraction. People serve people.

Taxation is a method of buying services.

If it was, then it wouldn't be theft. One can choose whether or not to buy a service, unlike taxation or gang protection payments. That will be $500 for the trouble of enlightening you by the way.

If privatised. Imagine private prisons, for instance - suddenly the focus is not guilt or innocence but profit. Private prisons profit by having more inmates. Thus more people will be incarcerated, deserving or no.

1. Prisons don't try criminals.

2. Pay-for-service models do not need to be privately owned nor unconstrained by charters and constitutions even if privately owned. The constraint of morality is consent, not private ownership.

To be objective entails realizing that the individual is not superior to the collective.

To be objective entails realizing that the individual is real, while the collective is an abstraction of individuals.

Only subjective values elevate the individual for the simple reason that 2 > 1

Only irrational moral reasoning sees rights pop out of thin air because people happen to work together in a certain time or place.

Yes.

Would you sign a contract to that effect?

What we discuss are two ships passing in the night. I argue within the frame of the system; you do not.

You've got a point there. I operate on a deeper level of reasoning than "let's see how we can twist the constitution or precedent to get what we want, and morals are subjective but everybody should be treated equally."

This is not the same.

Define justified.

I stated neither.

Then your facts are accepted and promptly found to be irrelevant to what actions we should or should not take. There is only one way across the is/ought canyon ER, and that is a moral bridge built out of values.

'War' is not 'murder.' Building a bridge' requires a collective effort; building a chair does not.

Depends on the war, and the bridge.

No collective effort independent of individuals either. The whole is the sum of it's parts. The magic of cooperation is in the efficiency of trade and specialization. Not mystical collective spirit.

That is your - I won't say problem - but lens. Not mine.

I've got the lens cloth, but you need to take it and wipe that smear off yourself.

'Means' are only justified by benefiting a collective, not an individual.

Prove it.

The sun is not something that represents us or our interests. The sun is not something that actively and consciously protects us. The sun is not something that intentionally provides us with opportunities. The sun does not demonstrate concern for the people living under it.

The sun didn't get our agreement to pay it for its light, and neither did the government.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:29:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:12:15 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:23:40 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:01:03 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:09:45 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:48:36 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Of course you would like Rand, especially because the majority of economists and philosophers alike have rejected her.

Calling me a contrarian? :p

Don't you get it yet? It doesn't matter to my beliefs (any of them) what any majority does. Ad populum (and I wouldn't sound like such a broken record if this disgusting perversion didn't permeate the fabric of ignorant thought) is called an informal fallacy for a reason.

But you act as though subscribing to a minority belief automatically makes you right. I suppose the 99% of scientists who talk about global warming being real are also wrong just because most of them agree.

You're not paying them without taxation nor under Objectivism. Way to take my argument out of context.

Dodge. Whether through taxation or voluntary payment the firemen are paid to save you. If that is the only objective reason you can think of to do it, if your argument that they are immoral by sitting idle is "but I'd pay them," then you have all but ceded Rand's point.

Under Objectivism, there is no voluntary payment. Have you even read Any Rand? The only way they'd be paid is if you paid them literally seconds before they put out the fire.


One, nobody succeeds without society.

Society does not exist without bodies [individuals].

And? In the state of nature, life is brutal and short. People kill each other. Read Hobbes.

They owe a debt to it, like it or not.

Delusion

If everything society provides is also a delusion.

Two, society services people.

Society is an abstraction. People serve people.

Within the framework of a society.

Taxation is a method of buying services.

If it was, then it wouldn't be theft. One can choose whether or not to buy a service, unlike taxation or gang protection payments. That will be $500 for the trouble of enlightening you by the way.

Exactly. It's not theft. You live in a society, you help provide for it and for others via taxation. People are not going to be selfless on their own.

If privatised. Imagine private prisons, for instance - suddenly the focus is not guilt or innocence but profit. Private prisons profit by having more inmates. Thus more people will be incarcerated, deserving or no.

1. Prisons don't try criminals.

2. Pay-for-service models do not need to be privately owned nor unconstrained by charters and constitutions even if privately owned. The constraint of morality is consent, not private ownership.

So now you abandon your position that everything should be privatised - which is pretty much pure capitalism, by the way.

To be objective entails realizing that the individual is not superior to the collective.

To be objective entails realizing that the individual is real, while the collective is an abstraction of individuals.

And then valuing the abstraction because it represents more individuals.

Only subjective values elevate the individual for the simple reason that 2 > 1

Only irrational moral reasoning sees rights pop out of thin air because people happen to work together in a certain time or place.

Nothing to do with the argument preceding.

Yes.

Would you sign a contract to that effect?

If needed.

What we discuss are two ships passing in the night. I argue within the frame of the system; you do not.

You've got a point there. I operate on a deeper level of reasoning than "let's see how we can twist the constitution or precedent to get what we want, and morals are subjective but everybody should be treated equally."

No, you argue on a level irrelevant to the discussion. Your points are only applicable when we step outside of the framework and discuss society in a general sense. This is why many of your points failed in our previous discussions - because you knew that, within the current system, my points were entirely valid.

This is not the same.

Define justified.

Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

I stated neither.

Then your facts are accepted and promptly found to be irrelevant to what actions we should or should not take. There is only one way across the is/ought canyon ER, and that is a moral bridge built out of values.

If so, then they would hopefully be values of compassion and collaboration, not egoism and every-man-for-himself.

'War' is not 'murder.' Building a bridge' requires a collective effort; building a chair does not.

Depends on the war, and the bridge.

No collective effort independent of individuals either. The whole is the sum of it's parts. The magic of cooperation is in the efficiency of trade and specialization. Not mystical collective spirit.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

That is your - I won't say problem - but lens. Not mine.

I've got the lens cloth, but you need to take it and wipe that smear off yourself.

I believe it's the other way around.

'Means' are only justified by benefiting a collective, not an individual.

Prove it.

I would kill one individual to save 50. I would kill 50 babies to cure cancer for all mankind. One has to look at the bigger picture to justify means. If I kill one individual or 50 babies for no other reason than it pleases me, I have committed a gross atrocity against humanity and violated the individual's right to life. If I do it for the reasons listed before, I have still violated their right, but it was justified.

The sun is not something that represents us or our interests. The sun is not something that actively and consciously protects us. The sun is not something that intentionally provides us with opportunities. The sun does not demonstrate concern for the people living under it.

The sun didn't get our agreement to pay it for its light, and neither did the government.

The government did. You're not compelled to live under the government. Are you really going to take up a tactic of explicit consent? You of all people?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 12:24:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:25:50 PM, Noumena wrote:
Wsa, yer asking the wrong questions.

Noumena, yer making the wrong statements.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:09:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 11:23:31 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Nope, but neither is private property.

How do you do it man?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 8:06:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 5:59:17 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:19:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:15:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:08:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:06:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/17/2014 1:01:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:56:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
He basically said 'depends on what you believe' and then told us his opinion. Neither of these things are arguments.

His point is that it's not "immoral"...you cannot make that blanket statement, that is an argument,

Was that his conclusion or one of his premises, because I didn't see any premises.

The premises are assumed

Really? Well then here is my argument that taxation is immoral:

Taxation is immoral.

Guess that about wraps it up doesn't it? Or is the next step a poll to tap into the thundering truth that is a crowd shouting?

ER also states that taxation is a fundamental aspect of society to justify its morality under a utilitarian calculus.

I stated it wasn't. I also stated that utilitarian calculus is little more than a joke since it has no measurements to work with much less do calculus on.

It has measurements, i.e. "utility".

there's no need to go into the various philosophical aspects of subjective morality.

If you want to make an argument there is. You can't say "This is delicious, but taste is subjective so it's only delicious to me [but I am still going to stuff it down your throat].

The underlined is exactly what the OP is attempting to do with his blanket assertion that taxation is immoral.

As the OP pointed out, it is the collective via the state that threatens (and actually uses) force. Therefore it is the one doing the stuffing, and if it can't come up with an objective reason then it has no justification what so ever because it's subjective values only justify it's actions in the delusional world it created for itself.

And what makes your point of view "objective"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:32:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 12:24:28 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:25:50 PM, Noumena wrote:
Wsa, yer asking the wrong questions.

Noumena, yer making the wrong statements.

Austin, yer copying my quirky spelling mistakes.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:03:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 8:13:41 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I would argue that taxation is morally impermissible for the same reasons theft is wrong. Taxation is not any type of petty theft, but extortion--the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. If one does not pay his taxes, he is subjected to fines, and may be taken from his house and caged.

Well that sounds like srs bizznizz. What's the argument for why taxation is moral? Vague notions of the common good (as if society is a homogenous blob) and the social contract (the standard for bad statist arguments).

Well, you are assuming that you earn your income without any help from the government. However, our earnings largely depends on a government that delivers a system, including public goods and services, infrastructure, security, education, our monetary system etc. from which we all benefit. This system is built on taxation. Thus you cannot have a right to all your pretax income. By participation in the system you are legally and morally obliged to contribute to the costs, because you are not natural entitled to the benefits of the system. For your argument to work, you have to establish that you have a moral entitlement to your pretax income.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth