GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph wrote:But to give necessities to all through a welfare system, you need to steal money from working class, you need to steal money off their paychecks without their permission, as some do not agree with socialist philosophy. Why should a universal welfare system be imposed on the working class? Do you believe that parasitic relationships are ethical? Do you think the ones that are too weak to work have a moral right to steal from the working class? Should the state have the moral right to keep all citizens alive by stealing from the ones who are working for it?

Let us take for granted the very questionable assumption that taxation is "stealing."

My answer is that no, I do not consider stealing ethical. Nor do I consider it ethical to let people go homeless or hungry when it can be prevented quite easily.

When faced with two unsavory choices, I'll pick the one that leads to fewer people dying or starving, thanks.

Taxation can't be reasonably considered theft, anyway. No one makes that argument but right-wing extremists, simply because it's obvious to everyone else that maintaining human civilization is a costly endeavor, and those who participate in civilization (and particularly those who benefit most from it) have an obligation to help bear those costs.

You also have to look at the language used in diatribes of this sort. It's really quite revealing of what is going on psychologically in the minds of the authors:

Do you believe that parasitic relationships are ethical? Do you think the ones that are too weak to work have a moral right to steal from the working class?

(Empasis mine)

Parasites. Leeches. Too "weak." Etc, etc, etc.

It's animalistic thinking, based solely on the animal level where all that matters is Charles Darwin and natural selection. There's nothing "human" in it - it is inhumane by definition.

In that sense, it truly fits the bill for "dangerous thinking," and the danger of it is written all over history under the headings of "eugenics," "death camps," "Nazism," etc.

Unfortunately, our world has always contained some sociopathic individuals who believe that only they and "their kind" have a right to live. It is the responsibility of the rest of us, as humane individuals, to learn the lessons of history and oppose this sort of thing wherever we find it, lest they come to power yet again and inflict more senseless misery.

Unidian wrote:Taxation can't be reasonably considered theft, anyway.

Couldn't we reasonably say that taxation under some conditions could be considered theft, but not under other conditions?

Consider a dictator who places (unreasonably) high taxes on his people for the sake of building lavish palaces for himself. Could that be considered theft? If not theft, exactly, can we agree that there is something wrong with it - an abuse of power, at the least?

Philo,

Let us take for granted the very questionable assumption that taxation is "stealing."

Tax is based on the assumption that some services can be better provided by the government, but much of what is taxed can be provided by private enterprises, especially the paving of highways, and I could argue that private health care and education are better quality as privatized services, but they’re not as easily accessible because they are more expensive. However one solution to inaccessible private education is to offer school voucher credits, which is what Milton Friedman proposed. And as for health care, the current system is probably solvable with a bit of reform and regulations from government to keep the insurance companies in check. So I’m not against all liberal ideas, I just believe that privatizing more government services will be better for the economy. Taxes would be lower, and people would have more buying power because they will have more disposable income.

When faced with two unsavory choices, I'll pick the one that leads to fewer people dying or starving, thanks.

It is pretty difficult to die and starve in modern western civilization; there are all kinds of different non-profit programs available by people who volunteer their time. Not to mention family and friends can bail people out or provide cheap places to live. People can be quite adaptable when they need to be.

I had the idea of wondering through different cities, and mapping out all the food banks, hostels, churches, and non-profits to see how difficult it truly is to live on the streets without welfare. It would make for an interesting book, in support of libertarian political philosophy. However, if I had a difficult time, I suppose I would have to change my tune, and support liberalism.

Ryan wrote:I think you’re making a fairly crude generalization here. I would say Most CEOS and owners work really hard every day to build their businesses. We are taking about a minority of people here, because I suspect the majority of successful business men continue to work and build their businesses even after they have built a fortune.

A popular leftist argument that only has merit in some cases.

The assumed meaning of that generalisation, and therefore the argument you think you're having with me, is actually your own, which is why I haven't entertained it.

To understand and argue against my position, you would need to address the ideas of division of labour and wage labour.

Carry on.

Couldn't we reasonably say that taxation under some conditions could be considered theft, but not under other conditions?

Consider a dictator who places (unreasonably) high taxes on his people for the sake of building lavish palaces for himself. Could that be considered theft? If not theft, exactly, can we agree that there is something wrong with it - an abuse of power, at the least?

Yes, I'd consider it abusive and immoral. It wouldn't constitue "theft" per se, because citizens implicitly cede the right to levy taxes to governments by tolerating those governments and living in the society adminstrated by them. The correct response in such a situation, in my view, would be to either leave the country in question (if possible) or organize and overthrow the abusive dictator in order to replace him with better leadership.

Leyla Shen wrote:Now I'm going to change the subject completely, to make it look like I'm saying something intelligent when, in fact, at worst, I've completely missed the point and am wholly unaware of having done so.

Not to be a dick, but I think you have missed the point. I'm not even sure why you are trying to argue capitalism v. socialism with me. I never claimed capitalism was the nation's savior or that it was even necessarily a good thing in and of itself.

Leyla,

To understand and argue against my position, you would need to address the ideas of division of labour and wage labour.

Well, you’re assertion that all 'super-'capitalist' business owners do very little compared to labor workers is not true. Business owners need to be organizers, accountants, overseers; quick thinking investors and all the rest of it. Basically, they need to make the right investments and improvements at the right time or their businesses no longer stay competitive or profitable.

you'd be surprised how many CEOS are not actually immoral, as leftists like to generalize. They have a huge amount of responsibility, and there are many different types of skills that they must know to ensure the survival of their company. They need to possess a deep understanding of economics, and how their own industry functions in relationship to the rest of the economy.

Wage labor maybe not fair, but it is an adequate representation of what each type of labor is worth in relationship to all other types of labor in that specific economy. There are many causal factors that determine wage labor. For instance: the more technological a society becomes, the lower the wage becomes for many low skilled jobs, which eventually will be replaced by robots anyhow. And then if the unfair wages in China is analyzed, much of that is due to the overpopulation problem in China, and how desperate the people are to survive, and so corporate giants come in and profit from their predicament.

So I commented on your assertion because it sounded a little too extreme in the leftist direction, and I thought I needed to balance it out a bit.

DHodges wrote:Couldn't we reasonably say that taxation under some conditions could be considered theft, but not under other conditions?

Sure. For Ryan’s sake, let’s run with it.

Consider a dictator who places (unreasonably) high taxes on his people for the sake of building lavish palaces for himself. Could that be considered theft? If not theft, exactly, can we agree that there is something wrong with it - an abuse of power, at the least?

Yes. So, my question is, when we consider a CEO’s (for Ryan‘s) bonuses or a company’s/investor profit margins, under what circumstances can we agree on an abuse of power relative to wage earners and, if we can‘t agree that there even could be anything considered as such, why not, exactly? Where is the distinction between high taxes and profits, and abuses of power?

Philosophaster wrote:Let us take for granted the very questionable assumption that taxation is "stealing."

My answer is that no, I do not consider stealing ethical. Nor do I consider it ethical to let people go homeless or hungry when it can be prevented quite easily.

When faced with two unsavory choices, I'll pick the one that leads to fewer people dying or starving, thanks.

That's what donations and volunteering time are for, not taxation. The money in my check is mine to keep and do with as I please. It's a direct tax on my person, which means it's unavoidable. My labor is also a part of my person, an even exchance of service for money, there is no gain or profit happening. The taxes that are taken out of my paycheck is in every way imaginable theft and robbery.

Unidian wrote:Taxation can't be reasonably considered theft, anyway. No one makes that argument but right-wing extremists, simply because it's obvious to everyone else that maintaining human civilization is a costly endeavor, and those who participate in civilization (and particularly those who benefit most from it) have an obligation to help bear those costs.

If I think any part of civilization is worth keep around, I'll voluntarily donate or spend my money on it. I don't need you or the government telling me how to spend my hard earned money. Taxes that are taken off the top of my paycheck is robbery, see my post above as to why.

Ryan wrote:Well, you’re assertion that all 'super-'capitalist' business owners do very little compared to labor workers is not true.

I never made such an assertion. The "business owners" qualification and comparing same in this way to wage labourers is entirely of your own making. You have invented it all on your, simply because you do not understand the root of capitalism. Due to this, you cannot comprehend what it would mean to speak of an absolute capitalist in the same way that absolute femininity is discussed. You seem to have no problem speaking in terms of absolute welfarism, however. Don't you think that odd? By it I can now only assume that you mean disabled people and women who have babies, which are not at all who I had in mind.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Now I'm going to change the subject completely, to make it look like I'm saying something intelligent when, in fact, at worst, I've completely missed the point and am wholly unaware of having done so.

Not to be a dick, but I think you have missed the point. I'm not even sure why you are trying to argue capitalism v. socialism with me. I never claimed capitalism was the nation's savior or that it was even necessarily a good thing in and of itself.

Actually, I'm not arguing capitalism v. socialism with you. I'm really not sure how I can make my point any clearer, which is that capitalism creates a welfare class, too. Seriously, what's the problem with that argument? Why have I "missed your point" (which I in fact acknowledged) for making it?

Leyla,

Yes. So, my question is, when we consider a CEO’s (for Ryan‘s) bonuses or a company’s/investor profit margins, under what circumstances can we agree on an abuse of power relative to wage earners and, if we can‘t agree that there even could be anything considered as such, why not, exactly? Where is the distinction between high taxes and profits, and abuses of power?

When taxes are so high that they put a strain on the middle-class, then we know there is a problem. And it maybe not just taxes, as it could be excessive spending that extends beyond the taxes, and so the value of the dollar suffers, which also affects the living conditions of the middle-class.

In the CEO case, suppose the CEO made a crucial business decision that increased profits for that year by 20 billion. Well, the CEO could still give employees raises and bonuses, invest in the company, keep shareholders happy, and still take a bonus for himself that could be in the millions. It all comes down to whether or not the CEO can balance the needs of the employees with the needs of the shareholders, while increasing the abstract worth and competitive edge of the company, while fulfilling his own needs.

Actually, I'm not arguing capitalism v. socialism with you. I'm really not sure how I can make my point any clearer, which is that capitalism creates a welfare class, too. Seriously, what's the problem with that argument? Why have I "missed your point" (which I in fact acknowledged) for making it?

Okay, well I agree with you that capitalism creates a welfare class because the value of low skilled labor does not adequately meet the requirements for a middle-class quality of living. However, capitalism works around that – Some business owners now build low cost housing complexes to fill that demand. And let us not forget that these same people live in an excessive state of poverty because most have bad habits that can be avoided. IE: smoking, drinking, other drugs, gambling, and materialism.

Basic low cost housing and food can be sustained with many low-skilled jobs if people were simply more wise with their money.

Nick said,

The money in my check is mine to keep and do with as I please.

Precisely. I agree, and that's why the taxes you pay to support the society you live in are not in your check.

This is a basic fallacy of the whole "it's my money" approach - namely that it simply isn't. Your money is the amount printed on the check. The reason taxes are taken out is because you aren't entitled to money that isn't yours. That portion of your production rightfully belongs to the society that enables you to produce. You implicitly agree to such a social contract by continuing to participate in the society.

Far from reasonable taxation being theft, tax evasion is actually theft. Those who refuse taxation steal from every member of society. They enjoy the benefits society provides (such as the means to earn a living in the first place), but they refuse to acknowledge their reciprocal obligation. Ironically enough, it is this attitude which is most deserving of labels such as "parasitic" and "leech-like."

Leyla Shen wrote:Actually, I'm not arguing capitalism v. socialism with you. I'm really not sure how I can make my point any clearer, which is that capitalism creates a welfare class, too. Seriously, what's the problem with that argument? Why have I "missed your point" (which I in fact acknowledged) for making it?

Well in a society absent of socialism there wouldn't be a welfare class because nobody would be receiving a welfare check. You can't have a welfare class when there is no welfare system. There might be poor people or people who are less well off than others, but you can't rightly call them the welfare class. Lower class would be more appropriate. And under my ideal system of government the lower class would be nearly non-existent unless people impose it on themselves. Keep in mind my ideal system of government only includes capitalism, it doesn't revolve around it. If you want a better idea of what my ideal system of government is, then read all my posts in this thread and you should get a good idea of what I'm describing.

Nick wrote:That's what donations and volunteering time are for, not taxation. The money in my check is mine to keep and do with as I please. It's a direct tax on my person, which means it's unavoidable. My labor is also a part of my person, an even exchance of service for money, there is no gain or profit happening. The taxes that are taken out of my paycheck is in every way imaginable theft and robbery.

Oh, oh! Now we're getting somewhere, just when I have to leave.

I'll be back to address this, Nick.

Unidian wrote:Precisely. I agree, and that's why the taxes you pay to support the society you live in are not in your check.

This is a basic fallacy of the whole "it's my money" approach - namely that it simply isn't. Your money is the amount printed on the check. The reason taxes are taken out is because you aren't entitled to money that isn't yours. That portion of your production rightfully belongs to the society that enables you to produce. You implicitly agree to such a social contract by continuing to participate in the society.

Far from reasonable taxation being theft, tax evasion is actually theft. Those who refuse taxation steal from every member of society. They enjoy the benefits society provides (such as the means to earn a living in the first place), but they refuse to acknowledge their reciprocal obligation. Ironically enough, it is this attitude which is most deserving of labels such as "parasitic" and "leech-like."

That's complete bullshit because it's based on the assumption that I actually care for anything society provides me. Secondly it's misleading to say society is providing me with anything, when the taxes I pay are spent by Government, only a fraction of what society consists of. I wont even get into the specifics of how my my taxes are spent(wasted) by puppet politicians. Thirdly the free market, not society, enables me to exchange my services for cash, and nobody owns the free market, so you are way off base there. That's like saying if I go rake leaves for a friend and in exchange he mows my lawn we are required to clean another guys gutters who sits on his ass while me and my friend perfrom all the labor. Lastly, the taxes that are taken out of my check involuntarily boils down to theft and robbery no matter how you slice it, twist it, or turn it.

As far as tax evasion goes, I consider it one of the most admirable acts of civil disobedience one can perform in protest against our Government of criminals.

Nick Treklis wrote:The money in my check is mine to keep and do with as I please. It's a direct tax on my person, which means it's unavoidable. My labor is also a part of my person, an even exchance of service for money, there is no gain or profit happening.

Heh, are you sure you know your libertarian economics? Libertarians have to insist that every unforced exchange is profitable -- otherwise they would have to admit that economic exploitation can exist even in a perfectly free market.

Moreover, the government is what makes possible the rule of law, one of the conditions needed for the existence of a free market and a stable society. What is that load of dung about you "not caring" what society provides you? LOL.

Philosophaster wrote:Heh, are you sure you know your libertarian economics? Libertarians have to insist that every unforced exchange is profitable -- otherwise they would have to admit that economic exploitation can exist even in a perfectly free market.

Who says I'm a libertarian or that I'm an expert on it? I just use what knowlege I have along with my wise judgement to form ideas and make decisions.

Nick,

That's complete bullshit because it's based on the assumption that I actually care for anything society provides me.

It doesn't matter whether you care or not. You participate, and that means you have an obligation.

Secondly it's misleading to say society is providing me with anything, when the taxes I pay are spent by Government, only a fraction of what society consists of.

Nonsense. Society is providing you with the ability to do almost everything you do on a daily basis. Without the institutions and infrastructure built by collective civilization, you wouldn't have a job in the firstplace. You'd be subsistence farming in the woods. If you really don't want to pay taxes, why not go do that instead of exploiting civilization without being willing to support it?

Thirdly the free market, not society, enables me to exchange my services for cash, and nobody owns the free market, so you are way off base there.

Without government regulation, chances are you'd already be dead in 40 different ways. One of the most obvious would be food poisoning, because in a truly free market, no food quality regulations exist. The list of dangers you would be exposed to goes on and on. Without collective oversight, free markets collapse almost immediately. They cannot exist independently, except in a form where absolutely no collectively-maintained institutions exist (which in cludes money itself, FYI). The only true "free market" is the one that existed in the primordial cave.

Lastly, the taxes that are taken out of my check involuntarily boils down to theft and robbery no matter how you slice it, twist it, or turn it.

Asserting this repeatedly does not make it any more true. If anything "boils down to theft and robbery," it's your own refusal to honor your reciprocal obligation to help maintain the society that enables you to be employed and earn money to begin with.

Philo and Unidian,

You guys miss the point that you don’t have to pay very much taxes if all services are handed over to private enterprise, which can handle them a lot better if there are more companies supplying the services. More companies equals lower prices and better service, why should the government have a monopoly on many of these services?

Also, I don’t agree that I should have to pay money off my paycheck every two weeks for the rest of my life to continuously pay for a service that I may only use a dozen times in my lifetime, that is not allowing the free markets to work…

Paying your taxes is agreeing that the government can provide some services better than private enterprise, which is simply not true. With the loss of a monopoly from the government, and forced competition, along with regulations at the state level, the service provided would end up being much cheaper than a government run beaucracy…

Philosophaster wrote:Moreover, the government is what makes possible the rule of law, one of the conditions needed for the existence of a free market and a stable society.

That doesn't justifty direct taxation (theft). And again a belief in taxation is blind faith in the idea that Government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

Philosophaster wrote:What is that load of dung about you "not caring" what society provides you? LOL.

Let me put it this way, 99.9% of what society "provides" for me I would love to see eliminated, or I could get along just fine without.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Philo and Unidian,

You guys miss the point that you don’t have to pay very much taxes if all services are handed over to private enterprise, which can handle them a lot better if there are more companies supplying the services. More companies equals lower prices and better service, why should the government have a monopoly on many of these services?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

The free market does many things (maybe even most things) very well, but not everything. There are well-studied economic reasons why this is so, but you have to do a bit of work to understand them, rather than merely repeating a few slogans like "taxation is theft."