Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Xlea321]
    #3069519 -

No, they are taken because people have agreed they are the best way of creating a society they want to live in. If they were simply being taken by force then those parties declaring they would end this "force" would be voted overwhelmingly into power. They arn't.

your reasoning is flawed. what happens if you don't pay taxes? is force initiated against you or not?

the coercive nature of taxation is an observable fact. when people refuse to pay taxes, they are taken away and thrown in jail. it happens to many people every year. their are cases pending right now.

there are many gray areas in libertarian thought very worthy of exploration in meaningful debate... i can think of quite a few that have never even been discussed on the board. debate over whether taxes are taken by force is worthless. they are. it is an observable fact. accept it and let's move on to something meaningful.

  They have the choice to vote libertarian or vote for others who support taxation. They choose to vote for people who support taxation. You may not like it, but that is reality.

like i said, some individuals decide to initiate force against nonconsenting individuals. what of those who would not voluntarily consent to having taxes taken?

(note that a fact implied by gazzbut's original question is that if taxes were not enforced, many would contribute less than they do now. he is of course correct in his assumption, and this fact undermines your position that taxes are actually voluntary contributions made by consenting individuals).

After all that stuff you said about it being best to let them and their families die you are now saying you would give money to them? You would make contributions to help people who arn't working? Seriously?

:rolleyes:

Edited by mushmaster (08/30/04 02:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3069576 -

All of these points obviously have sub-categories of benefits we receive from society merely from being a part of it without actually having to contribute anything to it.

everything on the list comes down to cops, courts, and military, all things that libertarians believe are legitimate cause for government expenditure...

you are not suggesting that people pay only for cops and courts to protect us, courts to enforce business contracts, and a military and police force to defend our rights...

you're saying that people should also pay for stuff like social welfare programs. it doesn't follow.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3069589 -

Following this peculiar logic: Congress is not a single senitent entity and therefore cannot make decisions.

correct. "congress" does not make decisions. the members of congress do. an individual can think about an issue, analyze it, judge the alternatives based on his or her values and interests, and decide. "congress" as a group can do none of these things. the individual members of congress on the other hand, being sentient beings, can make decisions, and their individual decisions are made policy according to a legal procedure.

Edited by mushmaster (08/30/04 02:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: ]
    #3069635 -

Im not talking about merely paying for the upkeep of these institutions. These institutions have grown over time they are the result of the contribution of many,many people and their sum total is the framework we as a group live in i.e our society.

It is this framework which allows us to exist in the manner in which we currently do. However, If this framework is incapable of sustaining all members of society in an acceptable manner then surely it falls to those who are benefitting from it to support those who dont?

Note, I am not supporting welfare or government as it stands now. Far from it. I beleive we could pay far less in tax and see far more results in terms of effective welfare than we do now. Perhaps we may reach a time when charitable contribuitions would indeed meet the needs of the poor but lets be honest I think we are a fair way from that right now. So in the meantime, welfare is neccesary wouldnt you agree? Or would you prefer to see the poor cut free and left to fend for themselves and rely on the voluntary generosity of others. Would you really be comfortable with that if it were to happen say a year from now?

Would a small victory in terms of making well off people feel a little less "coerced" not be offset by the potential misery many more could be plunged into?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3069683 -

These institutions have grown over time they are the result of the contribution of many,many people and their sum total is the framework we as a group live in i.e our society.

this "framework" is government. it is not society. government and society are not the same.

It is this framework which allows us to exist in the manner in which we currently do. However, If this framework is incapable of sustaining all members of society in an acceptable manner then surely it falls to those who are benefitting from it to support those who dont?

the government alone is not what allows us to exist as we do, nor could it.

So in the meantime, welfare is neccesary wouldnt you agree? Or would you prefer to see the poor cut free and left to fend for themselves and rely on the voluntary generosity of others. Would you really be comfortable with that if it were to happen say a year from now?

some people certainly are in a position where they need some help. this i will not deny. how does the fact that some are in need of assistance establish that some people should be forced to help them? should people be forced to help those in need?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3069709 -

The problem is that it's not just the well off who fund all the crap of government, the middle class funds the vast majority of it all. When you take money from Joe Sixpack to give to someone else, this is less money Joe has to sock away for retirement, putting him in a more precarious position of having to rely on a government system which by all actuarial accounts will be bankrupt in short order. When you take money away from Charlie the auto mechanic, he has less money to invest in his daughter's college fund, making it more likely that she will have to rely on tax payer funding when she's ready. When you take money away from Sam the store manager, he has less money to give to his favorite charity which helps to clean up addicts and get them off and keep them off the streets, instead the money goes to some federal program which has every incentive to those administering it to expand it's scope and look for more people to 'help' and keep them in need of 'help' and it will probably never have it's funding cut no matter how much of a failure it is (at least Sam can decide if his favorite charity is a waste and divert his resources elsewhere)... and so it goes.

What you deem important may be of a lower priority to those working to fund your favorite 'enlightened' schemes. Why are you or some government bureaucrat a better judge of what to spend the money on? Futhermore, it seems there is a never ending parade of new spending which is proposed at every turn by those eager to spend money which they do not earn.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: ]
    #3069795 -

Quote:
this "framework" is government. it is not society. government and society are not the same.



Semantics Mush. I am viewing society as "The totality of social relationships among humans." Social can be defined as "Living together in communities. Of or relating to communal living." (thanks Dictionary.com) So in this context I dont really see how government can be seperated from society.

Quote:
the government alone is not what allows us to exist as we do, nor could it.



I never said it does but neat sidestep to avoid commenting on the point I was making!

Quote:
how does the fact that some are in need of assistance establish that some people should be forced to help them? should people be forced to help those in need?



This is getting circular! Because those who are in a positon to help are not in this position purely thanks to their individual effort. They are in this position, in large part, because they have benefited from living in the framework society provides. Its a little like paying your membership dues to a club..no one forces you but if you try to carry on using the facilities then you end up in trouble. Thats fair isnt it?

Do you really believe a "survival of the fittest" mentality is the most intelligent collective strategy for the human species to advance?
Try thinking outside of the notion of the individual is sovereign etc for just a few moments and try to see the bigger picture.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Evolving]
    #3069844 -

I agree with what you are saying. Bad government and greed are not things that find any favour with me!

I just think that focusing primarily on welfare before thinking of ways to remove bad government is going the wrong way about it. If welfare was removed tommorow the government would almost instantly find some other reason to tax us. the tax burden on the individual would not go down and the amount of money people would feel able to donate voluntarily to welfare would be too low. We would create an underclass overnight.

How can the form of government we have be improved to minimise corruption, decrease waste, decrease interference in issues that have nothing to do with govt. etc etc?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: deafpanda]
    #3069930 -

deafpanda said:
In a way though, all taxes are taxes on income, even land tax, as that's where all your money originates from. You're still taking someone's money that has been earned.


No, that's the thing. It's not earned. No human effort or expenses went into making the land, so no one can rightfully claim exclusive rights to it. Therefore, the income generated by the land value was not earned at all.

Quote:
What about taxes on "de-merit goods" such as cigarettes and alcohol, goods whose consumption costs society as a whole?


It is not the government's place to legislate what people do to their own bodies.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3069942 -

GazzBut said:
So if you owned any land you would effectively be forced into trying to make some money on it to cover the costs of this tax?


No, you would not. Any money made from the land would be taxed, so if you don't make any money from it, it doesn't get taxed. The only thing you would be "forced" to do is find more legitimate sources of income.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3070065 -

GazzBut said:
Quote:
force: To compel through pressure or necessity



You are being rather simplistic because the behaviour of others, in this situation, obviously exerts as much force on the way I behave as my conscience does.

Btw, I quoted from dictionary.com also which just goes to show words have many nuances of meaning.


I think we're getting too hung up on semantics here. Here's what it comes down to: You have a choice whether to give to charity or not, as does everyone else. You may feel obligated to give more because of those who give less, but no one is forcing you(in the direct sense of the word) to do so. You may not like the fact that some choose not to give. You can bitch and moan about them all you want, and I wouldn't blame you, but you have no right to force them to give.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3070645 -

Semantics Mush

not at all. i asked you what benefits people recieve from being in a society that are not determined by what they contribute to others.

you resonded:

a) the legal system that protects you and enables our society to function (fairly) well.
b) the economic structure which allows us to enjoy the collective level of wealth/standard of living we do - I am talking about the actual system here, the actual nuts and bolts.
c) the system of govenrance (however flawed) which bestows rights upon us which many the world over are denied but which we take for granted.

and then later in reference to these items:

Im not talking about merely paying for the upkeep of these institutions. These institutions have grown over time they are the result of the contribution of many,many people and their sum total is the framework we as a group live in i.e our society.

the examples you were talking about were in the realm of government, not free society. the "framework" established by the examples is a reference to government, not society.

I never said it does but neat sidestep to avoid commenting on the point I was making!

it wasn't side-stepping at all. the "framework" that you were referring to is government. what i said was a comment about the point you were making.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3070885 -

you could say that there are 2 kinds of benefits that one receives from being in contact with other people:

1. free benefits
2. non-free benefits.

by free and non-free, i do not mean whether or not they cost the recipient anything; rather, i mean whether these benefits require someone to endure some sort of cost in order to create.

non-free benefits require productive human effort to produce. they have a cost to someone. in a free society, recipients of non-free benefits generally must offer something in exchange for this cost.

free benefits on the other hand, do not cost anyone anything. the fact that i can spend a single day painting a house, and due to specialization, can earn enough to purchase something like... a DVD recorder, is a free benefit i receive from living in society. the benefit i receive doesn't cost anyone anything to produce.

medical care, police protection, food, shelter, computers, etc., are non-free benefits. these must be produced, at a cost, by human beings.

the possibility of love, friendship, benefits associated with division of labor, etc., are free benefits.

in a free society the recipients of non-free benefits must pay for them in some way. it seems that you are suggesting (correct if i'm wrong) that people should also pay for the free benefits they receive. is that your position?

if your position is that people should pay for only non-free benefits, then i'm with you, and free market capitalism provides for this. if your position is that people should be forced to pay for the free benefits, my quesion is: in return for these benefits, who should they be forced to pay, and why?

Edited by mushmaster (08/30/04 10:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: ]
    #3072188 -

Quote:
Semantics Mush

not at all. i asked you what benefits people recieve from being in a society that are not determined by what they contribute to others.




Im afraid it is mush because we obviously have different definitions of what the word Society means so it is definitely a matter of semantics.

Quote:
the "framework" established by the examples is a reference to government, not society.




I think I have shown that government can, by definition, be considered a part of society.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: silversoul7]
    #3072197 -

How would you feel if a referendum was held on the matter and it was decided that the majority of people would prefer to pay an equal amount in the form of some kind of income tax towards welfare? (Basically as part of the membership fee to our society!)


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: ]
    #3072203 -

You've lost me a bit here mush what free benefits do you think I expect people to pay for? Give me some specifics.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3072558 -

GazzBut said:
How would you feel if a referendum was held on the matter and it was decided that the majority of people would prefer to pay an equal amount in the form of some kind of income tax towards welfare? (Basically as part of the membership fee to our society!)


I would feel that it is an unjust society. Such a membership fee would not secure my rights, but rather infringe upon them.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: silversoul7]
    #3072796 -

But how, apart from through a public police force paid for through taxation, do your rights get secured?

As for your land tax, I still hold that it's tantamount to an indirect income tax. I mean, people buy land, and even though it doesn't permanently belong to them, it is paid for from their income, and so a tax on their land is a tax on their income.

What counts as an initiation of force then? What about polluting the atmosphere - for every ton of CO2 you pump into the air, you are reducing the population's health by a tiny amount. Is that initiation of force?

How about if you build a housing estate on your land right next to someone's hotel and take $10000 from the value of their land and put customers off? Is that initiation of force?

You see, I think that negative externalities should be seen as initiation of force, and should be compensated for by tax. How else are they going to go away?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: silversoul7]
    #3072814 -

People get together and decide rights. So if you choose to live in a group and enjoy some of the benefits of living in that group then you only get, in terms of that group, the rights they grant you. No other rights are being violated, you would just feel like they are because you wouldnt be getting your own way.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: deafpanda]
    #3072818 -

Quote:
As for your land tax, I still hold that it's tantamount to an indirect income tax.



Of course it is because you get taxed on the money you make from the land and to make money from land requires effort, so you are in effect still being taxed on your productive effort.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Henry George and the Land Value Tax
( 1 2 3 all )		 Silversoul 5,821 56 09/19/05 11:19 PM
by Silversoul
* If libertarians/conservatives believe govt welfare leads to dependency
( 1 2 3 all )		 Tao 4,433 52 12/09/04 08:56 PM
by nycomyco
* Welfare and why it bugs me
( 1 2 3 all )		 Yarry 3,141 48 01/20/04 12:13 PM
by Malachi
* Whining about taxes
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 silversoul7 9,975 187 06/16/03 04:10 PM
by Azmodeus
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,907 40 03/03/02 09:53 PM
by sparafucile
* State-Run Welfare and Libertarianism retread 705 4 10/22/04 05:27 PM
by Ancalagon
* A few "welfare" myths
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 Xlea321 12,862 177 07/30/03 05:19 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* General Welfare
( 1 2 3 all )		 luvdemshrooms 2,606 45 12/14/03 03:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,911 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.