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 Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 227228229230231 286>
Author
Message
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:55
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

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. 


Agreed. That's not a justification though.

Quote
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.  


Well, I listed it as an assumption to make a completely different point, but okay we can get on this now. If me saying taxation is theft is an analogy, then you're saying that any description is an analogy.

It's not been argued because that's a largely irrelevant point. You want me to demonstrate legally that it's theft? That's an absurd onus to place on me. Are you suggesting that theft is a purely legally term?

I don't see how it's not theft. I'm sorry. Money is taken from me. I do not give it willingly. The money is used for things I find abhorrent and aberrant and outright disgusting. Not that any of that last stuff matters in the situation.

"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
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 09:59
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

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.  


Was it argued by me?

You agree to work for Walmart. I was born in the US. I own property. I've walked the lands. I don't see the comparison.
"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
Status: Offline
Points: 5792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:06
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Well, I listed it as an assumption to make a completely different point, but okay we can get on this now. If me saying taxation is theft is an analogy, then you're saying that any description is an analogy.

It's not been argued because that's a largely irrelevant point. You want me to demonstrate legally that it's theft? That's an absurd onus to place on me. Are you suggesting that theft is a purely legally term?

I don't see how it's not theft. I'm sorry. Money is taken from me. I do not give it willingly. The money is used for things I find abhorrent and aberrant and outright disgusting. Not that any of that last stuff matters in the situation.


I am not saying that merely say that tax is a theft is an analogy.  I am saying I have only read so far people saying, "If somebody placed a gun on my head and took my money, I wouldn't like it, no?".  Fine, but that's just an analogy.  That could be broken down to so many walks of life where the govt is not even involved but things have been decided by others on your behalf.  Is every such aspect a means of coercion?  

Yes, a theft is a crime for all practical purposes so I do need to see how tax is a crime by govt on its people.  I am not persuaded by symbolism.  It's ok if it works by you but I would then have to conclude that the libertarian case against tax is not all that watertight.  In any case, I have written several paras to demonstrate the need for tax in a country like India and if you are going to reject all that with a one line "I don't like tax and it's taken by force for me" I don't see how your arguments are any better reasoned than mine.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:09
Give me an example. I don't know what you mean?

If you think that criminal behavior is to be purely determined by law, then I have nothing to discuss with you.
"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
Status: Offline
Points: 5792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:13
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

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.  


Was it argued by me?

You agree to work for Walmart. I was born in the US. I own property. I've walked the lands. I don't see the comparison.

You may or may not own property.  It's not a given.  Many citizens only take accommodation on rent and in some cases even stuff like furniture or appliances on lease without buying it.   But that apart, the similarity is that many aspects of corporate culture are imposed on you during your employment with it.  You don't have the choice of saying it was not written in your contract.  In my stint with Ernst & Young, I would hand over drafts to a 'partner' who would make changes to it by hand (yes!) with a terrible handwriting and I was actually expected to type out all these modifications like a bloody stenographer.   I voiced my dislike for this to HR and seniors but obviously nothing changed and when I got a better offer, I left. This is how people leave one nation for another, in a way.   Tax, whether its existence or the rate of it, is just something you did not know when you joined the organisation.  You can try to persuade the organisation to change its policies or leave it altogether.  But the org can't change its rules just for you.  As long as you have nation-states, they will work to some extent on the same principles as an organisation, making choices deemed, rightly or wrongly, to be the best for the org but which may cause inconvenience to you.  This is why I also observed once before in this thread that for libertarianism to fructify in full, John Lennon's song Imagine would have to become reality.  And as much as I love the lyrics of that song, I cannot imagine that ever happening.  Man sees strength and power in collectivism and collectivism, whether voluntary or forced, always impinges on individual interests.   Why do bands break up, why do good teams fall apart?  It's all the same thing.  There's a necessary compromise involved in a joint effort; that's not necessarily always immoral.    
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:16
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Give me an example. I don't know what you mean?

If you think that criminal behavior is to be purely determined by law, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

Not by the stated laws of a land, but I need to find basis for it in legal principles.  If it is theft just because you say so, that's not very persuasive, sorry.   It's just your opinion.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:20
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Give me an example. I don't know what you mean?

If you think that criminal behavior is to be purely determined by law, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

Not by the stated laws of a land, but I need to find basis for it in legal principles.  If it is theft just because you say so, that's not very persuasive, sorry.   It's just your opinion.


Then let it rest. We're at an impasse.
"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
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:23
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

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.  


Was it argued by me?

You agree to work for Walmart. I was born in the US. I own property. I've walked the lands. I don't see the comparison.

You may or may not own property.  It's not a given.  Many citizens only take accommodation on rent and in some cases even stuff like furniture or appliances on lease without buying it.   But that apart, the similarity is that many aspects of corporate culture are imposed on you during your employment with it.  You don't have the choice of saying it was not written in your contract.  In my stint with Ernst & Young, I would hand over drafts to a 'partner' who would make changes to it by hand (yes!) with a terrible handwriting and I was actually expected to type out all these modifications like a bloody stenographer.   I voiced my dislike for this to HR and seniors but obviously nothing changed and when I got a better offer, I left. This is how people leave one nation for another, in a way.   Tax, whether its existence or the rate of it, is just something you did not know when you joined the organisation.  You can try to persuade the organisation to change its policies or leave it altogether.  But the org can't change its rules just for you.  As long as you have nation-states, they will work to some extent on the same principles as an organisation, making choices deemed, rightly or wrongly, to be the best for the org but which may cause inconvenience to you.  This is why I also observed once before in this thread that for libertarianism to fructify in full, John Lennon's song Imagine would have to become reality.  And as much as I love the lyrics of that song, I cannot imagine that ever happening.  Man sees strength and power in collectivism and collectivism, whether voluntary or forced, always impinges on individual interests.   Why do bands break up, why do good teams fall apart?  It's all the same thing.  There's a necessary compromise involved in a joint effort; that's not necessarily always immoral.    


I get the feeling that we're not really talking to each other.
"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
Status: Offline
Points: 5792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:34
Eh...I just tried to elaborate the point as to how there is a comparison between an organisation imposing its rules on its staff and a govt.   It's ok if you still don't agree.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:38
I'm saying that I must be unclear in what I'm saying. I'll have to write in more detail.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:41
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


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.              


It sounds to me like you are trying to correct past injustice with present injustice, which is understandable, but not, in my opinion, a good policy.

In America, we had slavery, a government injustice, followed by Jim Crow laws, also government injustice. To attempt to make up for this, we now have laws like affirmative action and other policies specifically designed to help black people. Perhaps a noble idea, but the result has not been as intended. Rather than erasing the race divide, we have created a culture of victimhood and entitlement. Whenever black people behave badly, whether committing crimes or failing to take responsibility for their families, the media excuses them and calls people who say that maybe we should try to discourage such behavior racist. We have an entire industry dedicated to clinging to past injustice and preserving bitter racial tensions. It also creates resentment, because these programs come at the cost of people who had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow and don't see why they should be held responsible for something they didn't do.

Contrast this with the Chinese, who were quite badly oppressed in this country, or the Japanese who were actually put into camps during the second World War. The same effort has not been made to make up for the sins of the past, and yet Chinese and Japanese Americans have rebounded very successfully, closing the racial gap much more quickly and with none of the violence bitterness we see in black ghettos.

I understand the desire to level atone for past sins, but policies that give one race/class special treatment over others have been proven failures. Better to simply level the playing field and give everyone the same treatment.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 10:47
Roger, can you define what you men by theft? I define it as "taking someone else's property without their consent." By this definition, tax is self-evidently theft. I should make it clear that I'm talking about theft in the moral sense, not the legal sense. The government could legalize murder and it would no longer be a legal crime, but it would still be a moral crime.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 11:00
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

 
It sounds to me like you are trying to correct past injustice with present injustice, which is understandable, but not, in my opinion, a good policy.

In America, we had slavery, a government injustice, followed by Jim Crow laws, also government injustice. To attempt to make up for this, we now have laws like affirmative action and other policies specifically designed to help black people. Perhaps a noble idea, but the result has not been as intended. Rather than erasing the race divide, we have created a culture of victimhood and entitlement. Whenever black people behave badly, whether committing crimes or failing to take responsibility for their families, the media excuses them and calls people who say that maybe we should try to discourage such behavior racist. We have an entire industry dedicated to clinging to past injustice and preserving bitter racial tensions. It also creates resentment, because these programs come at the cost of people who had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow and don't see why they should be held responsible for something they didn't do.

Contrast this with the Chinese, who were quite badly oppressed in this country, or the Japanese who were actually put into camps during the second World War. The same effort has not been made to make up for the sins of the past, and yet Chinese and Japanese Americans have rebounded very successfully, closing the racial gap much more quickly and with none of the violence bitterness we see in black ghettos.

I understand the desire to level atone for past sins, but policies that give one race/class special treatment over others have been proven failures. Better to simply level the playing field and give everyone the same treatment.

But there is no preferential treatment involved in the tax policy.  There are reservations in educational institutes and govt organisations for backward castes but tax is caste neutral and is imposed on income.  It is simply necessary to lift a large swathe of our population to some bare minimum level of dignity.  It would not be feasible to leave it unattended because that could lead to civil war, revolution or other kinds of social unrest.  As it is, some of the most remote parts of the country are occupied by militant groups so parts of the nation are in a state of quasi civil war.  It's not just about principles (though caste discrimination is abhorrent anyway); it is not practical for India not to do anything about the problem at all.  

But the point about caste discrimination is there probably wouldn't be so many people left to fend for themselves in abject poverty if the educated forward castes had taken an erudite view of things instead of seeking to oppress the majority.   In other words, the system prevailing in pre-independence India was probably similar to a libertarian one.  No physical force was ever required to keep the backward castes oppressed, only dubious social norms and a system that subtly deprived them of education.   Without govt intervention, it is unthinkable that their lot would have ever approved as the small minority of reformist minded forward caste people would have been silenced by the rest of the club.   But now thanks to govt dictating through its education system that caste discrimination is abhorrent, even I as a supposed forward caste member strongly oppose it and support the initiative to bring backward castes to the mainstream, notwithstanding its votebank oriented excesses.   

Also, caste discrimination is different from racism in the sense that a backward caste person cannot be identified by physical features.  So the measures have to a large extent helped people get out of the caste trap and attain a position of reasonable well being.   In the cities, they are no longer disdained or ill treated for their caste though in some of the rural areas, change may take longer to materialise. 
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 11:06
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Roger, can you define what you men by theft? I define it as "taking someone else's property without their consent." By this definition, tax is self-evidently theft. I should make it clear that I'm talking about theft in the moral sense, not the legal sense. The government could legalize murder and it would no longer be a legal crime, but it would still be a moral crime.

However, they do not.  The govt's understanding of crime extends to things that not all of the public may consider a crime, far from excluding those that would be commonly understood to be crime.  There is no consensus that tax is a crime, that is my point.  Therefore the notion lacks moral force in a general sense even though some individuals may be strongly convinced of it.   If the majority of the public really hated tax, why, there would be politicians who would seek to make hay out of it by rallying them and launching protests.   But that is not really the case, is it?

And as far as consent goes, my understanding is it is implied in your willingness to obey the laws of your country.   Whatever be the reasons for your doing so - your safety, well being, fear etc, you would much prefer to obey the law and pay tax than not and see if you have a public outcry in your favour.   You have to express your desire to junk the social contract by some or other means.   
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 11:23
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


However, they do not.  The govt's understanding of crime extends to things that not all of the public may consider a crime, far from excluding those that would be commonly understood to be crime.  There is no consensus that tax is a crime, that is my point.  Therefore the notion lacks moral force in a general sense even though some individuals may be strongly convinced of it.   If the majority of the public really hated tax, why, there would be politicians who would seek to make hay out of it by rallying them and launching protests.   But that is not really the case, is it?


So you take an entirely relativistic view of morality? If a government says something is legal, it is moral, if it says it is illegal, it is not? It doesn't matter what the majority thinks. It matters what is just or unjust, right or wrong. There was no consensus that slavery was a crime 200 years ago. That doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


And as far as consent goes, my understanding is it is implied in your willingness to obey the laws of your country.   Whatever be the reasons for your doing so - your safety, well being, fear etc, you would much prefer to obey the law and pay tax than not and see if you have a public outcry in your favour.   You have to express your desire to junk the social contract by some or other means.   


So if a man points a gun at a girl and demands that she have sex with him or he will shoot her, her consent is implied, because she chose sex over death? That's not how consent works. You can't consent to something when the alternative is being jailed, tortured, killed or otherwise severely punished. That is coercion.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16448
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 11:51
Not to be the devil's advocate, but in theft, you usually don't get anything in exchange for what's stolen. In taxes, at least in theory, you are getting services and other things (most that you actually don't want, like funding wars or bailing out banks) back.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 11:55
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Not to be the devil's advocate, but in theft, you usually don't get anything in exchange for what's stolen. In taxes, at least in theory, you are getting services and other things (most that you actually don't want, like funding wars or bailing out banks) back.


It doesn't matter though. If you rob someone's house but do the dishes and vacuum the carpets before leaving, it doesn't change the fact that you stole from them.
Back to Top
The Bearded Bard View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team

Joined: January 24 2012
Location: Giftland
Status: Online
Points: 9846
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Bearded Bard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 12:34
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

And as far as consent goes, my understanding is it is implied in your willingness to obey the laws of your country.   Whatever be the reasons for your doing so - your safety, well being, fear etc, you would much prefer to obey the law and pay tax than not and see if you have a public outcry in your favour.   You have to express your desire to junk the social contract by some or other means.
So if a man points a gun at a girl and demands that she have sex with him or he will shoot her, her consent is implied, because she chose sex over death? That's not how consent works. You can't consent to something when the alternative is being jailed, tortured, killed or otherwise severely punished. That is coercion.
Not a very good comparison, IMO. The picture is not as black and white as you paint it. For it to be a good comparison, the girl in the scenario must be allowed to try to persuade her attacker not to rape or shoot her, 'cause in a democratic nation people have the right to express their opinion in matters like taxes, through political work and elections.

Also, if the attacker, after hearing the girls arguments, still didn't withdraw his threats, the girl would have to be allowed to leave the country.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 12:38
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:




So you take an entirely relativistic view of morality? If a government says something is legal, it is moral, if it says it is illegal, it is not? It doesn't matter what the majority thinks. It matters what is just or unjust, right or wrong. There was no consensus that slavery was a crime 200 years ago. That doesn't make it right.


I don't (that morality depends on what the govt says) and I think I have already said that.  I just pointed out that your example is exaggerated; neither murder nor racial discrimination is condoned by govt laws.   And when I say consensus, I mean consensus of the people.  Where is this massive outcry against tax that there ought to be for something that is ostensibly so evidently a crime?  I am open to the idea that tax MIGHT be immoral or criminal but I cannot see that it is so vehemently, self evidently so as you are stating it.   And again, I have not yet heard any reasonable arguments why tax is unjust or wrong beyond the stealing analogy.  How is it still unjust in the face of extreme inequalities forced on people by centuries of discriminatory practices - both sides have to be weighed to reach a position. And here I am not talking about hypothetical analogies but hard realities that descendants of the elite don't have the option of washing their hands off.  I could hunt out and upload pictures to bring home the extent of injustice I am talking about, but I don't see that that is relevant.  

It cannot be a one sided stance - that sounds more like a matter of opinions or preference than principle.  You have said before that you would prefer voluntary payments for services to a govt instead of tax.  So your objection is only to the manner in which tax is collected, not tax in itself.   I recognize the hardship of an imposed financial burden and I also recognize the realities which deem it necessary.  If some day the country wins the war on poverty, I might change my mind.  And hey, a lot of tax is already embedded in consumption and the highest rates of tax on personal income have been brought down over the last 10 years.  Which, I believe, also happened under Reagan in America?   

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:



So if a man points a gun at a girl and demands that she have sex with him or he will shoot her, her consent is implied, because she chose sex over death? That's not how consent works. You can't consent to something when the alternative is being jailed, tortured, killed or otherwise severely punished. That is coercion.


In the case you have given, she could still file a case for sexual abuse so there would effectively be no consent.  And I do not know about American tax laws but no tax provision in India can send you to the hangman for not paying tax and a wilful falsification of information furnished to the tax authorities has to be proven even to initiate criminal prosecution.   In most cases, there would only be a further financial penalty usually for not paying tax at all or under-paying.   So I suspect that you are allowing yourself the liberty of hyperbole to make out your case against tax.  

You also have the option of first paying it and then launching a signature campaign against it to fight it.  If the person does not even make the appearance of having resisted the thing that is supposed to have been forced on him through the threat of violence, it seems reasonable to infer consent.   If you really were that strongly opposed to tax, perhaps you would try to rally opinion against it.   It seems to be more of a nuisance factor for you.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2013 at 13:01
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


It cannot be a one sided stance - that sounds more like a matter of opinions or preference than principle.  You have said before that you would prefer voluntary payments for services to a govt instead of tax.  So your objection is only to the manner in which tax is collected, not tax in itself.


I do object to taxes per se, because a tax by definition involves force. Voluntary payments is not a tax. IIt is a donation.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:



So if a man points a gun at a girl and demands that she have sex with him or he will shoot her, her consent is implied, because she chose sex over death? That's not how consent works. You can't consent to something when the alternative is being jailed, tortured, killed or otherwise severely punished. That is coercion.


In the case you have given, she could still file a case for sexual abuse so there would effectively be no consent.  And I do not know about American tax laws but no tax provision in India can send you to the hangman for not paying tax and a wilful falsification of information furnished to the tax authorities has to be proven even to initiate criminal prosecution.   In most cases, there would only be a further financial penalty usually for not paying tax at all or under-paying.   So I suspect that you are allowing yourself the liberty of hyperbole to make out your case against tax.  

You also have the option of first paying it and then launching a signature campaign against it to fight it.  If the person does not even make the appearance of having resisted the thing that is supposed to have been forced on him through the threat of violence, it seems reasonable to infer consent.   If you really were that strongly opposed to tax, perhaps you would try to rally opinion against it.   It seems to be more of a nuisance factor for you.


You've missed my point. You said that consent is implied because people obey, even if they only do so out of fear. I didn't say "government is like a rapist." I pointed out that obeying out of fear is not consent.


Edited by thellama73 - August 03 2013 at 13:02
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 227228229230231 286>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.785 seconds.