Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 226227228229230 284>
Author
Message
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31496
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
    Posted: August 02 2013 at 21:55
Also, "low tax rates" is a meaningless concept in and of itself.  What are you taxing?  Income?  Property?  Purchases?  Women?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16347
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 22:09
Originally posted by thellama73

Oh I completely understand that poor people who get free money from others don't think it's wrong
Sorry Logan, but this is the kind of statement that makes libertarians look like apostles for the rich and completely oblivious to the rest of the world. The tax = theft idea, though not unique to America, is basically only sort of mainstream here in the US. When I was in Switzerland, by NO accounts a poor country full of destitutes (quite the opposite) as my sister lives there, I tried to check around and see what people think of taxation (which is quite high in there). I had the chance to gather thoughts of a lot of people (yes, not the entire population but random enough to give me an idea) and people there couldn't even begin to think of eliminating all taxes as they see they get great services in exchange. Same in Germany. From friends in other quite-not-poor places I have gathered the same.

Taxes might be morally wrong (I'm not sure) but I wouldn't say that only poor people support them. The "I hate taxes" thing is mostly American. And that's fine. In the end the people arguing here for libertarianism all live in the US. But don't fall in the error of generalization yourself.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8327
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 22:12
Originally posted by The T

Originally posted by thellama73

Oh I completely understand that poor people who get free money from others don't think it's wrong
Sorry Logan, but this is the kind of statement that makes libertarians look like apostles for the rich and completely oblivious to the rest of the world. The tax = theft idea, though not unique to America, is basically only sort of mainstream here in the US. When I was in Switzerland, by NO accounts a poor country full of destitutes (quite the opposite) as my sister lives there, I tried to check around and see what people think of taxation (which is quite high in there). I had the chance to gather thoughts of a lot of people (yes, not the entire population but random enough to give me an idea) and people there couldn't even begin to think of eliminating all taxes as they see they get great services in exchange. Same in Germany. From friends in other quite-not-poor places I have gathered the same.

Taxes might be morally wrong (I'm not sure) but I wouldn't say that only poor people support them. The "I hate taxes" thing is mostly American. And that's fine. In the end the people arguing here for libertarianism all live in the US. But don't fall in the error of generalization yourself.


I was just responding to what roger said, which was all about the poverty in India and how people there are fine with taxes. He only mentioned the poor, so I responded in the same way. Of course some rich people support taxation, but they also hire lawyers to get out of paying as much as they can. They are worse than the poor, in fact, because of their hypocrisy.

Why do people keep mentioning whether an idea is popular or mainstream? What does that have to do with anything?


Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31496
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 22:15
Originally posted by thellama73


Why do people keep mentioning whether an idea is popular or mainstream? What does that have to do with anything?



Because if they can paint you as a lunatic, they do not have to intellectually engage you.

It's quite the same thing with racism, really.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16347
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 22:16
^Nothing. I just think generalizations are to be avoided
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2522
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 22:57
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

A question for the other libertarians here: would you prefer a government that had a social safety net with welfare, healthcare coverage, etc., but was funded entirely by donations, or a government that imposed taxation but had low tax rates and used the money only for the enforcement of the non-agression principle?


The former wouldn't be a government.  It'd be a charity.  Wink


So are you an anarcho-capitalist then?  I was under the impression that you thought government should exist but that it should not have power to tax and that it's sole purpose would be to enforce the non-agression principle?  I guess I should have made it more clear: the first idea of government I described would cover the "safety net" but would also enforce that principle.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31496
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 23:29
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

A question for the other libertarians here: would you prefer a government that had a social safety net with welfare, healthcare coverage, etc., but was funded entirely by donations, or a government that imposed taxation but had low tax rates and used the money only for the enforcement of the non-agression principle?


The former wouldn't be a government.  It'd be a charity.  Wink


So are you an anarcho-capitalist then?  I was under the impression that you thought government should exist but that it should not have power to tax and that it's sole purpose would be to enforce the non-agression principle?  I guess I should have made it more clear: the first idea of government I described would cover the "safety net" but would also enforce that principle.


I have zero problem with the concept of government if and only if it respects property rights. 

People will always always always be the ones to most efficiently enforce the non-aggression principle.





Edited by Epignosis - August 02 2013 at 23:30
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2522
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 23:34
So if a property-rights respecting government used money donated voluntarily from its people to fund a welfare program, would you be for that program or against it?

Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - August 02 2013 at 23:34
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8327
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 23:39
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

So if a property-rights respecting government used money donated voluntarily from its people to fund a welfare program, would you be for that program or against it?


I completely support voluntary organization to help people, and don't see why anyone wouldn't. If this hypothetical government (if it can really be called such) doesn't take people's property and doesn't attempt to arrest competitors, I would be quite happy with that.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31496
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2013 at 23:41
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

So if a property-rights respecting government used money donated voluntarily from its people to fund a welfare program, would you be for that program or against it?


What makes this a government?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2522
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 00:15
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

So if a property-rights respecting government used money donated voluntarily from its people to fund a welfare program, would you be for that program or against it?


What makes this a government?


You were the one who defined it as a government in the first place. Confused

It's a government because it enforces the non-agression principle and because, I assume, it is provided for in the constitution of the hypothetical nation.  I suspect that we might be talking at tangents here and not really getting what each other is saying?
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5399
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 05:18
Originally posted by thellama73

Oh I completely understand that poor people who get free money from others don't think it's wrong, but what other people think has no effect on what I think unless they can make a persuasive argument.

I have never seen any distinction between an individual taking someone else's money for his own purposes and the government doing so, the government being nothing more than a large collection of individuals, and have never heard any convincing reason why the two things are different, morally speaking.

That's one way to look at it and just one: the micro way, focused on the individual as a microcosm of the world, wherein your view might sound logical.   But we have look at the larger picture, the historical baggage.

I cannot comment on America but in India, millions were oppressed through the caste system, condemned to remain second class (or, as the British Raj called it, cattle class) in their own land merely because they were the children of sweepers/masons/cooks etc.   The forward castes not only placed themselves on a higher pedestal in terms of power and position; they denied them education and awareness but filtering all education through Sanskrit (the supposedly perfect language) instead of regional languages which the backward castes could have understood.  In any case, a backward caste person however intelligent could only remain a poor, starving backward caste person because it was supposedly his 'destiny' since birth.  

It's interesting that Obama talked about the importance of upward mobility recently, because that's exactly what was entirely missing in the lives of backward caste people and remains elusive to the direly poor.   The result was mass poverty, droughts and starvation in the years up to the Green Revolution (not that we don't have droughts anymore, just much less often).   Thus, in independent India, tax is an instrument of social and economic redistribution to bring back opportunity, skill and respect to the lives of those who were condemned to poverty for no fault of theirs.

If a particular individual living in India cannot empathise with this need and does not want to pay for the sins of his father, he/she is free to leave the country.  There is no coercion; from way back when India has never stopped its citizens from leaving for good if they so desire.  But this redistribution project is important for the long term stability of the country and extends logically from the very premise on which the freedom struggle was fought - what is an independent country good for if it cannot free its own citizens from oppression and discrimination.   I would urge that it is equally as morally repugnant that millions should be condemned to live and die on the streets destitute even as lucky idiots born with a golden spoon can splurge for a lifetime without contributing anything worthwhile to the nation; liberty does not resonate at least in these parts as a good reason to endure such inhumanity.  Thus, tax.  

If the elites of the world were really as reasonable and fair minded as they love to claim to be, there would be no caste/race/gender discrimination, no oppression and no tax (because, above and beyond indulging in it, they also sought to legitimize it as the norm).   There wouldn't even be a need to redistribute anything.  Unfortunately, the elites have frequently proved their status to have derived from the size of their purse than their intellect.  To choose voluntarily for cruelty is not a good choice to make and yet that is the choice that the elites made, make and will continue to make.              


Edited by rogerthat - August 03 2013 at 08:53
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31496
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 08:19
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

So if a property-rights respecting government used money donated voluntarily from its people to fund a welfare program, would you be for that program or against it?


What makes this a government?


You were the one who defined it as a government in the first place. Confused

It's a government because it enforces the non-agression principle and because, I assume, it is provided for in the constitution of the hypothetical nation.  I suspect that we might be talking at tangents here and not really getting what each other is saying?


I think I misread what you were saying.  I would have no objection to this, no.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31496
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 08:21
An article about South Korean hagwons.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15372
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:15
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

A question for the other libertarians here: would you prefer a government that had a social safety net with welfare, healthcare coverage, etc., but was funded entirely by donations, or a government that imposed taxation but had low tax rates and used the money only for the enforcement of the non-agression principle?


Definitely the previous.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15372
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:17
Originally posted by rogerthat


If a particular individual living in India cannot empathise with this need and does not want to pay for the sins of his father, he/she is free to leave the country.  There is no coercion; from way back when India has never stopped its citizens from leaving for good if they so desire.


You've just described coercion.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5399
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:32
How so?  If you have grown up in a particular country, you are aware of its laws.  You can choose to live with them, seek to modify them through appropriate channels or just leave if you don't like it.  If the country did not let you either persuade change or even leave its shores, that would be coercion and I don't think any democratic nation is generally guilty of either.  I am not saying a person cannot seek to move a petition to remove tax from the system.  Let people try and if there is consensus in favour of it, it will happen.  I just don't like the idea of giving each and every individual a choice to pay or not to pay tax.   That's not going to happen, so anybody who has a massive problem with that can leave the country if he so wishes, no bar on that.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15372
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:38
That's all fine and good if you assume that the laws are moral or not coercive themselves and if people have no right to their property. If on the other hand you assume taxation is theft, you have a situation where an organization is stealing from you with the ultimatum to pack up and leave if you don't like it. That's how mobs operate. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5399
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:44
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

That's all fine and good if you assume that the laws are moral or not coercive themselves and if people have no right to their property. If on the other hand you assume taxation is theft, you have a situation where an organization is stealing from you with the ultimatum to pack up and leave if you don't like it. That's how mobs operate. 

A nation cannot be run on the basis of each and every individual's whims and fancies, no?  It might be feasible up to some point in a small city state but if 1 billion people wanted to customise everything as per their values, it would be practically impossible to administer.  

Also, shouldn't there be a solid basis to first assume that tax is just a theft?  You have objected before to using analogies to put forth arguments in this thread but the only arguments for taxation amounting to theft that I have read so far use analogies too.  There has been no attempt so far to argue why social redistribution by means of a tax is not necessary in a country that requires a considerable amount of social rebuilding.  I would like to first hear a case why tax is FACTUALLY and LEGALLY a theft.  I could then consider that to see if that challenges any assumptions I make.  
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5399
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:48
In this thread, it was argued before in favour of big bad business and their employment practices that you knew what you signed up for so you made the choice to accept coercive policies.  How does it work differently then wrt tax and govt?  Yes, you had the misfortune of growing up in a country that steals your money but having become wise to the fact, you do have the choice to leave the nation in search of places like, um, Dubai? to escape tax if it is indeed a pain point for you.  No democratic nation forces you to both pay tax and stay put forever.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 226227228229230 284>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 1.516 seconds.