Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taxes

sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't. If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 9:50:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't.

You wouldn't be a slave because you'd have the choice to not work.

If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?

I can't really respond to this because of what I said previously.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 9:53:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For essentially what the OP said, written better:

Robert Nozick wrote:

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, :and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often :is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules :(not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be :allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and :so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work :only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they :wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of :their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some :emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount :required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves :from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, :for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint :decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among :them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever :percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities :legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this :transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You :now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed :master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in :case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single :master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him :to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to :enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various :policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote :to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you :to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After :the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In :the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, :they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have :never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit :himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the :master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries :the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:00:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:53:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
For essentially what the OP said, written better:

Robert Nozick wrote:

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, :and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often :is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules :(not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be :allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and :so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work :only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they :wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of :their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some :emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount :required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves :from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, :for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint :decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among :them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever :percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities :legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this :transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You :now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed :master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in :case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single :master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him :to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to :enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various :policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote :to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you :to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After :the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In :the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, :they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have :never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit :himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the :master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries :the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

I've never seen this so correct me if I'm completely ignorant here... where is the line drawn between slavery and freedom and how does it directly relate to our government? Or is that what the OP is asking?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:02:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:50:01 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't.

You wouldn't be a slave because you'd have the choice to not work.

That's a ridiculous false dichotomy. Either be a slave or don't work? That's like Harry Reid claiming that our tax system is voluntary -- you can choose whether or not you want to pay them...but if you don't, you go to jail. Even you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor. You are, in essence, a serf.

If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?

If it takes any amount, however negligible, you are a slave.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:04:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 10:02:41 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/1/2010 9:50:01 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't.

You wouldn't be a slave because you'd have the choice to not work.

That's a ridiculous false dichotomy. Either be a slave or don't work? That's like Harry Reid claiming that our tax system is voluntary -- you can choose whether or not you want to pay them...but if you don't, you go to jail. Even you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor. You are, in essence, a serf.


If they're taking 100% of your pay, why would you work? lol

If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?

If it takes any amount, however negligible, you are a slave.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:04:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Slavery, simply put, is the use of coercion to live off of someone else's labor.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:04:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:53:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
For essentially what the OP said, written better:

Robert Nozick wrote:

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, :and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often :is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules :(not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be :allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and :so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work :only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they :wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of :their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some :emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount :required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves :from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, :for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint :decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among :them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever :percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities :legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this :transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You :now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed :master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in :case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single :master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him :to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to :enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various :policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote :to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you :to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After :the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In :the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, :they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have :never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit :himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the :master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries :the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

Say something in the context of the topic.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:14:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 10:00:50 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
I've never seen this so correct me if I'm completely ignorant here... where is the line drawn between slavery and freedom and how does it directly relate to our government? Or is that what the OP is asking?

The line is drawn at when there is no longer a government.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:15:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 10:04:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Slavery, simply put, is the use of coercion to live off of someone else's labor.

Hence our current tax code. What amazes me is how so many people will vote for politicians that support a tax code that is used to single out and punish. Which by the way is every single Democrat without exception. A consumption tax would single handily strip gov't of at least half of all their power overnight. The best tax system is consumption. 1% every time money changes hands. no deductions no forms no need for tax lawyers. Revenues would double and job creation would explode. But no, we can't do that because that would work.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 10:22:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Consumption Tax: A Critique
http://mises.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:09:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:50:01 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't.

You wouldn't be a slave because you'd have the choice to not work.

So does a traditional slave.

Both choices are fatal. Neither are proper to have as the only choice, your work is YOUR property.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 4:16:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't. If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?

I don't know if you ever played the Pokemon games, but something funny happens. When you beat other trainers, some of your cash winnings go to your mother. She eventually uses the money to buy you nice things you can't really find along your journey. It's still your money, it's just being changed into another form that also happens to be useful to you.

It's one thing if the government takes your money and shreds it in a giant shredder. It's another thing if it goes to erecting buildings, roads, funding public schools and afterschool programs, doing research, and essentially running all the organizations that even make it possible for you to go to work at all.

Furthermore, taxes are a fee for your involvement in society. Your very birth is a burden on society. From the day you were born, you were taking advantage of things that man could develop because of the tax dollars of the generation before, and the generation before that, so on to prehistory.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 6:21:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 4:16:58 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't. If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?

I don't know if you ever played the Pokemon games, but something funny happens. When you beat other trainers, some of your cash winnings go to your mother. She eventually uses the money to buy you nice things you can't really find along your journey. It's still your money, it's just being changed into another form that also happens to be useful to you.

This is equally immoral, although its "nice" because its your mom. And the game has been programmed and balanced around this mechanism. They're not going to send your pokedollars to the military industrial complex so they can go kill a bunch of brown children.

It's one thing if the government takes your money and shreds it in a giant shredder. It's another thing if it goes to erecting buildings, roads, funding public schools and afterschool programs, doing research, and essentially running all the organizations that even make it possible for you to go to work at all.

Government is not the only entity that can do these things. But they operate without competition and without prices, so they have no incentive and no way of knowing what to spend it on.

Hell, even slaveowners spend *some* of the slave's income on feeding them. The only difference between American slaveowners and government is that they went out and kidnapped a bunch of people, while the government just kind of set up where everyone was already living.

Furthermore, taxes are a fee for your involvement in society. Your very birth is a burden on society. From the day you were born, you were taking advantage of things that man could develop because of the tax dollars of the generation before, and the generation before that, so on to prehistory.

Except all that stuff had already been paid for. The telephone had already been invented, and I "free ride" off that invention. Except no one says I owe society this huge debt just because I came along during a technologically advanced era that makes it really easy for me to live compared to by ancestors.

Property rights are really what stop my free riding from being problematic. I don't free ride off telephones because if I want one, I have to pay for one. Since government provides all these services for the public (even if they are eaasily excludable and providable by the private sector, ex education) they are claimed to be the commons and therefore they justify a common burden - taxation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the commons problem is vastly overstated, and can be used to justify any level of taxation on society because the commons can always be expanded.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 6:42:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't. If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?

I guess my question is this. What percentage of ones income should all govt be able to take from you before you start becoming a slave or indentured servant to govt. And further more, what difference does it make what they earn? Taking a greater percentage from one person than another based on income is class warfare and immoral it's discriminatory and arbitrary.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 6:50:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 6:42:22 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/1/2010 9:45:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
If the govt takes 100% of everything you earn that makes you a slave to gov't. If it takes 50% what are you? If it takes nothing what are you? If it takes 72.6% what are you? If I make $1,000,000 a year and the gov't takes 90% that leaves me $100,000. That puts me in the top 10 percent of wage earners after taxes. Am I rich or a slave to gov't?

I guess my question is this. What percentage of ones income should all govt be able to take from you before you start becoming a slave or indentured servant to govt. And further more, what difference does it make what they earn? Taking a greater percentage from one person than another based on income is class warfare and immoral it's discriminatory and arbitrary.

I think people who take money from the govt in the form of living assistance have a greater obligation of explaining where their money goes than do people of wealth explaining where they got it to the govt.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 7:06:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 6:21:39 AM, Sieben wrote:
This is equally immoral, although its "nice" because its your mom. And the game has been programmed and balanced around this mechanism. They're not going to send your pokedollars to the military industrial complex so they can go kill a bunch of brown children.

But how, then, would you suggest those brown children be killed if we don't provide the tax dollars for it?

Kidding.

All institutions are run by people and all people have the chance at being corrupt. Having a business collect money and do immoral things is no different from having a government collect money and do immoral things. It's just that with a business, it becomes their money, and there's no way to *stop* those immoral things from happening. At least with government, exposure can lead to someone being kicked out of office. You can't always rely on the market mechanism either. People buy things made in China despite the civil rights atrocities, and buy it in ever increasing amounts. People won't stop buying from a company that funds immoral practices so long as they get their goods. The government is at least controlled somewhat by voters who put them in office.

Government is not the only entity that can do these things. But they operate without competition and without prices, so they have no incentive and no way of knowing what to spend it on.

You mean, except for millennia of practice? Do you also forget that people put them in office? That if tax dollars are not spent wisely, people will lose their jobs? They have plenty of incentive. It's just not the market mechanism.

Hell, even slaveowners spend *some* of the slave's income on feeding them. The only difference between American slaveowners and government is that they went out and kidnapped a bunch of people, while the government just kind of set up where everyone was already living.

I wonder why you dichotomize the people in government with american citizens in general.

Except all that stuff had already been paid for. The telephone had already been invented, and I "free ride" off that invention. Except no one says I owe society this huge debt just because I came along during a technologically advanced era that makes it really easy for me to live compared to by ancestors.

Yes, they do. They say it every two weeks in the form of the negative signs on your paycheck. The people a generation before you paid taxes to pitch in the pool for you. You pay taxes to pitch in to the pool for the next generation. So on and so forth, starting tens and thousands of years ago, on to the future.

Property rights are really what stop my free riding from being problematic. I don't free ride off telephones because if I want one, I have to pay for one. Since government provides all these services for the public (even if they are eaasily excludable and providable by the private sector, ex education) they are claimed to be the commons and therefore they justify a common burden - taxation.

The price for a telephone with the features it has today is far cheaper than the price for such a telephone 2 years ago. I don't believe you were the one to develop those features. Throughout the history of mankind, tax dollars/the pool of resources has invested in society, to allow people to develop specialized skills instead of needing to spend every waking moment finding food and escaping predators. The only reason why you are able to go to an easy job to harvest immense resources and trade for incredible goods, is that a history of people paid taxes so that you don't have to scrounge for apples and run from lions.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the commons problem is vastly overstated, and can be used to justify any level of taxation on society because the commons can always be expanded.

I don't know what the "commons problem" is.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 7:47:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 7:06:28 PM, Kleptin wrote:

All institutions are run by people and all people have the chance at being corrupt. Having a business collect money and do immoral things is no different from having a government collect money and do immoral things. It's just that with a business, it becomes their money, and there's no way to *stop* those immoral things from happening.
Really? You can stop buying their product. You can even defend yourself if they're attacking you. Its all far from perfect, but these are all market mechanisms. It is only one side of the "capitalist" coin. There are social alternatives to the market. Government is one. Non-aggressive legal orders are another. I don't see why I can't permutate all your arguments for governments into them.

At least with government, exposure can lead to someone being kicked out of office. You can't always rely on the market mechanism either. People buy things made in China despite the civil rights atrocities, and buy it in ever increasing amounts.
So, arguably this is still better than not buying the stuff at all. If you stop buying it, they're still slaves except now their masters are poor too and they might all die.

Even if you don't buy *that*, there's still the fact that buying a bunch of cheap stuff from them frees up more resources in our economy that can be used to help them. Why would a market help exploited chinese workers? Charity, which is what you have to rely on through government anyway, or, more likely, some western employer offering the chinese workers better working conditions and UG-railroads them out somehow.

People won't stop buying from a company that funds immoral practices so long as they get their goods. The government is at least controlled somewhat by voters who put them in office.

In the very weakest sense... See my thread on Democracy.

Government is not the only entity that can do these things. But they operate without competition and without prices, so they have no incentive and no way of knowing what to spend it on.

You mean, except for millennia of practice? Do you also forget that people put them in office? That if tax dollars are not spent wisely, people will lose their jobs? They have plenty of incentive. It's just not the market mechanism.

As for voter accountability, see my thread. Or myth of the rational voter is fine http://www.cato.org...

Government has an incentive to spend tax dollars poorly so that it can get even more funding for its projects. I can find a lot of sources showing that USG departments will routinely waste money at the end of fiscal years, just because if they don't use it all, their funding will be cut. If I recall correctly, there are supposed to be giant warehouses of extra furniture in washington purchased for this specific purpose :P

Hell, even slaveowners spend *some* of the slave's income on feeding them. The only difference between American slaveowners and government is that they went out and kidnapped a bunch of people, while the government just kind of set up where everyone was already living.

I wonder why you dichotomize the people in government with american citizens in general.

The dichotomy is no good anymore, because so many people support the state. But at the time, when immigrants were coming to new land and setting up homesteads and contractual communities, the emergence of state and federal governments is very obviously predatory. Its like you go, start farming, and then come back to the coast next season to find a tax collector who insists you owe him money.

Except all that stuff had already been paid for. The telephone had already been invented, and I "free ride" off that invention. Except no one says I owe society this huge debt just because I came along during a technologically advanced era that makes it really easy for me to live compared to by ancestors.

Yes, they do. They say it every two weeks in the form of the negative signs on your paycheck. The people a generation before you paid taxes to pitch in the pool for you. You pay taxes to pitch in to the pool for the next generation. So on and so forth, starting tens and thousands of years ago, on to the future.

Sorry. I meant that no one sane makes this sort of argument. No one taxes me for the telephone, or the airplane, or anything invented privately. This argument is only used to apologise retroactively for government.

The price for a telephone with the features it has today is far cheaper than the price for such a telephone 2 years ago. I don't believe you were the one to develop those features. Throughout the history of mankind, tax dollars/the pool of resources has invested in society, to allow people to develop specialized skills instead of needing to spend every waking moment finding food and escaping predators. The only reason why you are able to go to an easy job to harvest immense resources and trade for incredible goods, is that a history of people paid taxes so that you don't have to scrounge for apples and run from lions.

So? Taxes are not the only way I reinvest in society. You're also trying to make the argument that I always have an obligation to future generations just because past generations provided so much for me. Well, my life was a gift from my parents. You might make a very convincing aesthetic case for me to try and pay back society, but strictly speaking, a gift does not bind me to reciprocate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the commons problem is vastly overstated, and can be used to justify any level of taxation on society because the commons can always be expanded.

I don't know what the "commons problem" is.

When there's something that a whole bunch of people have to use at once. In common. Like roads. The government calls them "Public". And so even though roads had historically been provided privately, and still are in italy, the government seizes this sector of the economy and draws more resources to itself.

Then, they get into a habit of arguing that everything is "commons" or "public" and extending their control over it. At one time, milk delivery was in danger of being publicized. There's no logical end to what the government can and cannot provide under this scheme.

The slippery slope starts whenever you admit that there are unique problems only a government can solve. But A) It probably isn't true if you think about it for a little while or look up non-government examples (because the government seldom can do anything original) and B) The problems caused by government intervention need to be weighed against whatever benefits are being argued.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 8:33:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 7:47:10 PM, Sieben wrote:
Really? You can stop buying their product. You can even defend yourself if they're attacking you. Its all far from perfect, but these are all market mechanisms. It is only one side of the "capitalist" coin. There are social alternatives to the market. Government is one. Non-aggressive legal orders are another. I don't see why I can't permutate all your arguments for governments into them.

Yeah, the "stop buying their product" thing is an old and irrational argument. It takes a collective effort to really make a point heard and the majority of people won't give a crap. I thought I would have sidestepped this argument by drawing the China example, but apparently, that argument is too tempting to give up, despite how ineffective it is.

The alternatives you propose, I don't deny. Of course they would all work fine and dandy on paper. I'd like to see some notion as to why they would work in practice, and you seem to be sidestepping each request.

So, arguably this is still better than not buying the stuff at all. If you stop buying it, they're still slaves except now their masters are poor too and they might all die.

Even if you don't buy *that*, there's still the fact that buying a bunch of cheap stuff from them frees up more resources in our economy that can be used to help them. Why would a market help exploited chinese workers? Charity, which is what you have to rely on through government anyway, or, more likely, some western employer offering the chinese workers better working conditions and UG-railroads them out somehow.

Pretty much. Corruption is present in the country not because of the existence of a government, but because of the nature of man. I doubt Anarchy would do anything to solve any problem you attribute to the government without causing two more for every one addressed.

In the very weakest sense... See my thread on Democracy.

As for voter accountability, see my thread. Or myth of the rational voter is fine http://www.cato.org...

More reading ;_____;??

The rational voter is just as much an imaginary creature as the rational participant in the market.

Government has an incentive to spend tax dollars poorly so that it can get even more funding for its projects. I can find a lot of sources showing that USG departments will routinely waste money at the end of fiscal years, just because if they don't use it all, their funding will be cut. If I recall correctly, there are supposed to be giant warehouses of extra furniture in washington purchased for this specific purpose :P

What purpose does it have for projects except to serve the people who put them in office? As for the end of year wasteage, that's not just government practice. That happens in private companies too. Different departments receive funding and they need to match yearly spending or exceed it.

The dichotomy is no good anymore, because so many people support the state. But at the time, when immigrants were coming to new land and setting up homesteads and contractual communities, the emergence of state and federal governments is very obviously predatory. Its like you go, start farming, and then come back to the coast next season to find a tax collector who insists you owe him money.

This is ludicrous. Government has existed in some form or another for millennia. It's the oldest institution known to man. Support for the state isn't new, it's the acceptance of responsibility. From an early age in this country, we are taught to be different, individualistic, to value freedom and liberty, to be original and that we are all special, etc. This is brainwashing by the media to draw out the extremely gifted, seed ambition, and detect early genius and talent. The vast majority of people are just mediocre. It takes them a while to realize that they have a responsibility to others just as much as to themselves and the best way to accomplish that is to improve the state, not demolish it. Anarchism is the refusal to grow up.

Sorry. I meant that no one sane makes this sort of argument. No one taxes me for the telephone, or the airplane, or anything invented privately. This argument is only used to apologise retroactively for government.

There is no such thing as something invented privately. If you buy seeds, fertilizer, and soil, you don't say that great tomatoes just grew by themselves. Without the pool of resources offered by society, no one would be able to invent anything.

So? Taxes are not the only way I reinvest in society. You're also trying to make the argument that I always have an obligation to future generations just because past generations provided so much for me. Well, my life was a gift from my parents. You might make a very convincing aesthetic case for me to try and pay back society, but strictly speaking, a gift does not bind me to reciprocate.

Your life was a gift from your parents and simultaneously, a burden on society. If you get hit by a car, you're taken to the ER. That's what happens when humans instinctively care for their wounded. You become a burden. Every footstep wears down the city pavement, your presence on the street blocks someone else's path. Your job exists because of someone else's doing, and is easier than it would be if you didn't take advantage of what someone else did before you. Food is more nutritious and abundant not because of your parents, but because of people long dead that your parents owe as much as you. It's not a gift. It's club dues.

You either pay the club dues, or you get kicked out of the club. If you get kicked out of the club, you die. Society doesn't let people die. So instead, they put you in jail until you pay your dues.

When there's something that a whole bunch of people have to use at once. In common. Like roads. The government calls them "Public". And so even though roads had historically been provided privately, and still are in italy, the government seizes this sector of the economy and draws more resources to itself.

They also take on the responsibility. Centralizing responsibility makes it easier to expect a certain level of quality. You don't buy phones from a phone company because they make nice roads. Sure, you can have a road company, but then you'd have to pay tolls. Isn't it more convenient just to pay the government a lump sum for all the benefits you enjoy, instead of several dozen?

Then, they get into a habit of arguing that everything is "commons" or "public" and extending their control over it. At one time, milk delivery was in danger of being publicized. There's no logical end to what the government can and cannot provide under this scheme.

Great. I wish the government would take over a bit more. Give me more benefits and charge me a lump sum. Take over my health care and transportation, will you? I'd be willing to pay for a discount and not have to worry about price shopping. I have too much else to worry about.

The slippery slope starts whenever you admit that there are unique problems only a government can solve. But A) It probably isn't true if you think about it for a little while or look up non-government examples (because the government seldom can do anything original) and B) The problems caused by government intervention need to be weighed against whatever benefits are being argued.

When I see people fretting about the government taking over something else, I get really confused. I don't mind paying higher taxes if it means less hassle. I wish the government would take over my gas, electric, and water bills, as well as transportation. Less bills to pay.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 8:39:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't mind paying higher taxes if it means less hassle. I wish the government would take over my gas, electric, and water bills, as well as transportation. Less bills to pay.
No one is stopping you from using a bill-consolidation service if that's what you like. Other people would prefer to save money.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 9:55:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 8:33:43 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Yeah, the "stop buying their product" thing is an old and irrational argument. It takes a collective effort to really make a point heard and the majority of people won't give a crap.

This is a great explanation for why voting is irrational and a waste of time.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:23:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 10:02:41 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
That's a ridiculous false dichotomy. Either be a slave or don't work? That's like Harry Reid claiming that our tax system is voluntary -- you can choose whether or not you want to pay them...but if you don't, you go to jail. Even you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor. You are, in essence, a serf.

Isn't that what capitalism is? We like to think of capitalism only as an economic system, but it's beyond that -- it's a political system. It's a class system. It differentiates power and control. It's inherently political. People assume that capitalism is the system that allows for the most freedom, but that's only true if you're super wealthy. Otherwise, you're a slave or a serf -- nothing but a means to an end (another's profit) just as a slave is. You could opt out of this fate and die, of course, but is that better than being an "official" slave?

Sorry but somebody's gotta give you libertarians something to debate around here ;)

Anyway is it true that you go to jail for not paying taxes? I thought you could only go to jail if you didn't file your taxes.

Also, you said, "Even if you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor." How are there fruits of your labor without labor?
President of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:38:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:23:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/1/2010 10:02:41 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
That's a ridiculous false dichotomy. Either be a slave or don't work? That's like Harry Reid claiming that our tax system is voluntary -- you can choose whether or not you want to pay them...but if you don't, you go to jail. Even you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor. You are, in essence, a serf.

Isn't that what capitalism is? We like to think of capitalism only as an economic system, but it's beyond that -- it's a political system. It's a class system. It differentiates power and control. It's inherently political. People assume that capitalism is the system that allows for the most freedom, but that's only true if you're super wealthy. Otherwise, you're a slave or a serf -- nothing but a means to an end (another's profit) just as a slave is. You could opt out of this fate and die, of course, but is that better than being an "official" slave?
It depends on how you define capitalism. If, like Reasoning, you define it as the system we currently have, then yes, your description is accurate. But if you are talking about the idea of a free market, that is, a market free of the aggressive violence of the state, then no. It clearly is not a political system, as it is defined by the absence of a political system. As for the non-rich being serfs in a free market, that is completely false. For a trade to occur in a free market, it must be voluntary, and, thus, the person on each side of the trade must believe that the exchange will be beneficial. So if someone is working for low wages, they are doing so because they are better off with that job than without it. This could hardly be considered the same thing as slavery, which is forced labor for below market wages. (Slaves are usually compensated somewhat, either with food and shelter, or that plus a small stipend in the case of conscription. The compensation is necessarily below-market , as if it wasn't, the slaves wouldn't be slaves, they'd take the jobs voluntarily) Of course, there would be very few, if any, super-rich people in a free society, and far less poverty.

Sorry but somebody's gotta give you libertarians something to debate around here ;)

Anyway is it true that you go to jail for not paying taxes? I thought you could only go to jail if you didn't file your taxes.
Not sure. But I can't imagine that the IRS just lets people file tax forms but not pay any money.

Also, you said, "Even if you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor." How are there fruits of your labor without labor?
He means that you are forbidden from owning the potential fruits of your labor, should you decide to work.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:41:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:38:09 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
If, like Reasoning, you define it as the system we currently have

And why wouldn't you? That's the way the term is used.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:41:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:23:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Isn't that what capitalism is? We like to think of capitalism only as an economic system, but it's beyond that -- it's a political system. It's a class system. It differentiates power and control. It's inherently political. People assume that capitalism is the system that allows for the most freedom, but that's only true if you're super wealthy. Otherwise, you're a slave or a serf -- nothing but a means to an end (another's profit) just as a slave is.

Real capitalism is the only system that treats people as an end rather than a means. Even if there is a large wage gap, the people on the bottom are still better off here and now than in any other society in history. The gap would be a lot smaller if it weren't for ridiculous corporate welfare laws that destroy competition and policies designed to keep poor people poor.

You could opt out of this fate and die, of course, but is that better than being an "official" slave?

Feel free to opt out and live in a cooperative with like minded individuals. Libertarianism is the only system that let's you do that. So long as you don't force anyone else into your system ;)

Sorry but somebody's gotta give you libertarians something to debate around here ;)

Anyway is it true that you go to jail for not paying taxes? I thought you could only go to jail if you're not a government official like Geithner et al.

Fix'd.

Also, you said, "Even if you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor." How are there fruits of your labor without labor?

If you don't work, you don't produce anything, ergo there is nothing for you to own.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:43:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:23:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/1/2010 10:02:41 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
That's a ridiculous false dichotomy. Either be a slave or don't work? That's like Harry Reid claiming that our tax system is voluntary -- you can choose whether or not you want to pay them...but if you don't, you go to jail. Even you choose not to work, you are forbidden from owning the fruits of your labor. You are, in essence, a serf.

Isn't that what capitalism is? We like to think of capitalism only as an economic system, but it's beyond that -- it's a political system.
This is true.

It's a class system.
This is not. It is relevant in the courtroom of a capitalist political system "Do you own" (specific property in dispute). It is not relevant "What is the total value of your assets?"
It differentiates power and control.
Control over one's property. Power? Not in the sense I use the word certainly :P

People assume that capitalism is the system that allows for the most freedom, but that's only true if you're super wealthy. Otherwise, you're a slave or a serf
No, you're a jobseeker. Or a hunter-gatherer perhaps.

Anyway is it true that you go to jail for not paying taxes? I thought you could only go to jail if you didn't file your taxes.
Clearly, no one would ****ing pay if they could just do some paperwork and then not pay and stay out of jail.

You might get fined as an intermediate step, but that's essentially "We're adding a late fee to your taxes and giving you a little warning, before we drag you off to jail, with guns in case you don't cooperate with that."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:46:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:23:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
It's a class system.

This.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:53:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:43:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a class system.
This is not. It is relevant in the courtroom of a capitalist political system "Do you own" (specific property in dispute). It is not relevant "What is the total value of your assets?" ... Control over one's property. Power? Not in the sense I use the word certainly :P

The more capital you have, the more influence you have. This is pretty powerful. The more powerful and influential you are, the higher your "class" is regarded. Even if you don't favor a legal institution that favors these classes with specific and distinct legal rights, they're still part of a more powerful class. Classes still emerge through capitalism.

No, you're a jobseeker. Or a hunter-gatherer perhaps.

Sure, if the fruits of your labor only benefit yourself and you don't work for another's profit.

Clearly, no one would ****ing pay if they could just do some paperwork and then not pay and stay out of jail.

This is probably true, but since when are people rational? If everyone refused to pay taxes to begin with, then *gasp* the problem of taxes would be solved. The state would be abolished and there would be nothing to punish you. Unfortunately most people don't tend to think this way.
President of DDO