For my Libertarian friends

Epignosis wrote: You two completely missed my point about Wal-Mart jobs.

You know I read what I want to
On that note thank you Rob, I AM handsome

Sorry if I messed up what you originally said, I keep doing that you as of late 

Ah, yeah probably should've read back to that post

I find that an odd analogy myself...
Was that a rebuttal to the "tax is theft" argument?
Yall already know my opinion on taxation, in general.




Edited by JJLehto - September 17 2010 at 13:27

Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Sorry if I messed up what you originally said, I keep doing that you as of late  It's all good. What I meant was this: EtL said taxes were like a caveman who found oil or something precious that would be of great use to the community. Despite there being dozens of things wrong with that analogy, all I meant was that oil was a lucky find for someone in his scenario- a job isn't usually a lucky find.  You can get a job (like at Wal-Mart), and you will pay income tax.  I'm just saying EtL's analogy is flawed on multiple levels.

Be that as it may, the issue of property rights appears to be at the heart of Libertarian theories.
(I'd go as far to say that everything they believe follows on from this premise to the extent they value property rights above human well-being)
The purpose of the caveman story was to illustrate that any natural resource does not have a natural rightful owner. If the seller doesn't own the resource  then he can't sell it. (he would be no better than someone trafficking in stolen goods)
I'm suggesting that in taking unilateral control of a resource that belongs not just to him but to everyone, he infringes upon the rights of others to harness that resource in accordance with what would increase human well-being.
That someone can be deemed to 'own' a natural resource is absurd e.g. owners are perfectly entitled to destroy their property without interference so it would be entirely responsible for society to intervene to ensure such irrational actions do not affect something as pivotal to all our well-being as a natural resource.

I'm not rebutting 'tax is theft' with  - 'property is theft' but just saying that someone's claim to the latter has to be a damn site more ethical than what Libertarians have to offer with 'Finders Keepers' or an unwitting endorsement of 'squatters rights for natural resources'

But yes, the loincloth in the story was provided by Wal-Mart and the club sponsored by Epignosis

Epignosis wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Sorry if I messed up what you originally said, I keep doing that you as of late  It's all good. What I meant was this: EtL said taxes were like a caveman who found oil or something precious that would be of great use to the community. Despite there being dozens of things wrong with that analogy, all I meant was that oil was a lucky find for someone in his scenario- a job isn't usually a lucky find.  You can get a job (like at Wal-Mart), and you will pay income tax.  I'm just saying EtL's analogy is flawed on multiple levels. Be that as it may, the issue of property rights appears to be at the heart of Libertarian theories. (I'd go as far to say that everything they believe follows on from this premise to the extent they value property rights above human well-being) The purpose of the caveman story was to illustrate that any natural resource does not have a natural rightful owner. If the seller doesn't own the resource  then he can't sell it. (he would be no better than someone trafficking in stolen goods) I'm suggesting that in taking unilateral control of a resource that belongs not just to him but to everyone, he infringes upon the rights of others to harness that resource in accordance with what would increase human well-being. That someone can be deemed to 'own' a natural resource is absurd e.g. owners are perfectly entitled to destroy their property without interference so it would be entirely responsible for society to intervene to ensure such irrational actions do not affect something as pivotal to all our well-being as a natural resource. I'm not rebutting 'tax is theft' with  - 'property is theft' but just saying that someone's claim to the latter has to be a damn site more ethical than what Libertarians have to offer with 'Finders Keepers' or an unwitting endorsement of 'squatters rights for natural resources' But yes, the loincloth in the story was provided by Wal-Mart and the club sponsored by Epignosis Then let me offer you a hypothetical scenario, my friend. A man goes to medical school and studies medicine and is brilliant in the field.  He, on his own (and without the aid of the government) discovers a procedure that cures all cancers.  He is able to overcome any cancer in any patient.  Does the government have the right to force him to cure people's cancer or force him to teach others how to cure cancer? And closer to our case: Does the government have the right to take money from people's income to pay for this man to cure cancer and teach others how to cure cancer?

Ethics would prevail here Robert in the form of a physician's Hippocratic Oath:

(extract)

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

Medical expertise ain't a natural resource so I don't know why you used this example?
and should the good Doctor break his sworn adherence to the oath he would be barred from practising.
I like to think that we both might agree that ethics cannot be broken down into any facile analogy with either contract agreements or property rights (which all the Libertarians love to do it seems )

ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Sorry if I messed up what you originally said, I keep doing that you as of late  It's all good. What I meant was this: EtL said taxes were like a caveman who found oil or something precious that would be of great use to the community. Despite there being dozens of things wrong with that analogy, all I meant was that oil was a lucky find for someone in his scenario- a job isn't usually a lucky find.  You can get a job (like at Wal-Mart), and you will pay income tax.  I'm just saying EtL's analogy is flawed on multiple levels. Be that as it may, the issue of property rights appears to be at the heart of Libertarian theories. (I'd go as far to say that everything they believe follows on from this premise to the extent they value property rights above human well-being) The purpose of the caveman story was to illustrate that any natural resource does not have a natural rightful owner. If the seller doesn't own the resource  then he can't sell it. (he would be no better than someone trafficking in stolen goods) I'm suggesting that in taking unilateral control of a resource that belongs not just to him but to everyone, he infringes upon the rights of others to harness that resource in accordance with what would increase human well-being. That someone can be deemed to 'own' a natural resource is absurd e.g. owners are perfectly entitled to destroy their property without interference so it would be entirely responsible for society to intervene to ensure such irrational actions do not affect something as pivotal to all our well-being as a natural resource. I'm not rebutting 'tax is theft' with  - 'property is theft' but just saying that someone's claim to the latter has to be a damn site more ethical than what Libertarians have to offer with 'Finders Keepers' or an unwitting endorsement of 'squatters rights for natural resources' But yes, the loincloth in the story was provided by Wal-Mart and the club sponsored by Epignosis Then let me offer you a hypothetical scenario, my friend. A man goes to medical school and studies medicine and is brilliant in the field.  He, on his own (and without the aid of the government) discovers a procedure that cures all cancers.  He is able to overcome any cancer in any patient.  Does the government have the right to force him to cure people's cancer or force him to teach others how to cure cancer? And closer to our case: Does the government have the right to take money from people's income to pay for this man to cure cancer and teach others how to cure cancer? Ethics would prevail here Robert in the form of a physician's Hippocratic Oath: (extract) I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. Medical expertise ain't a natural resource so I don't know why you used this example? and should the good Doctor break his sworn adherence to the oath he would be barred from practising. I like to think that we both might agree that ethics cannot be broken down into any facile analogy with either contract agreements or property rights (which all the Libertarians love to do it seems )

Working at Wal-Mart isn't a natural resource either, so I'm not sure why you chose your original example to demonstrate taxation.

Not barred doctors... good... Maybe I qualify as a doctor then, since I remember I put a band-aid on someone once... 

^After seeing your last point, my reply stands, though I can see some sense in the general practitioners case... It's still risky though...

^Those are the ones that the market takes care of...

The T wrote: ^After seeing your last point, my reply stands, though I can see some sense in the general practitioners case... It's still risky though...

Of course it's risky, but it would be significantly cheaper to go to a non-diploma doctor, so if people don't have the money and want to take the risk, shouldn't they be allowed to?
I think the mosque in NY is in bad taste, but of course I support the right to build it.