 |
| |
|
|
Victor Galis
|
 |
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Victor,
Thanks for responding point-by-point. |
-You know there are a lot of people that don't like that
quote:
Hmm...I never thought of freedom as making us all poorer. |
-Centralization enables increases in prosperity.
quote:
The US government under the Constitution is not communistic where government owns everything and allows us to live on it's land. It was not "government" that paid for my house, it was me. |
-I'd like to see you try to hold on to that house for over a year without government protection.
quote:
"Government" is not a business with title to our homes. |
-The government has the exclusive right to provide governamental services and charge taxes in exchange.
quote:
How many people actually starved to death before all these welfare programs? |
-How many people lived to be 65?
quote:
Non-moral"? Forcing others to "buy" a service they don't want is no different that a protection racket run by the Mafia. |
-Ah, but it is. The government has the legal monopoly on violence (by definition).
quote:
Btw, it is hypocritical to tell people to move if they don't like certain government policies since you are still living here. |
-I still agree with the idea of taxation. I don't like the government's policies, you don't like the idea of government. It's a matter of degree.
quote:
But they do "collectively"? That makes no sense... |
-But it does. Collectively they are a single entity. Individually they are not. To work, the government must be a monopoly.
quote:
You need to explain that "analogy". |
-Well taxes aren't so different from other fees for services provided.
quote:
is entirely possible that Hitler never murdered anyone, that doesn't mean he wasn't a mass murderer. And you are using your vote (assuming you vote) to make decisions about other people's property, that means you're acting as a "co-landlord". |
-You make very hasty assumptions. You have more of a voice in your govt. than I do.
quote:
Why would the costs be any different than the costs now? The public owns the public roads so it's up to the public to maintain them. |
-The government is not out to make a profit. If three separate pieces of a 100 mile highway were owned by 3 different entities, you would have to pay 3 tolls.
quote:
And I don't oppose taxes to support an army as long as they are voluntary. |
-They are voluntary, you can leave the country. The army can't just stop defending part of the country because you don't want to pay your taxes.
quote:
I just refuted your argument and now you want to debate whether or not we would come together for a common cause? |
-Like hell you did. Your statement in no way proves that libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy.
quote:
The Constitution is an anarchist document? |
-It overrestricts a modern government.
quote:
Then change it through the amendment process. |
-Why should we be bound by an agreement we never signed?
And Imran don't get me started on American "culture."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
I am interested to know where Berzerker and Mr Dolphin would draw the line. What 'services' would you have a government provide by default which one could not opt out of (eg. laws)?
And how would you justify these things to yourself 'morally' since the same 'moral' objections must still apply. I mean, if, for example, someone believed drink driving or speeding was morally OK and shouldn't be illegal, would you say that he should be allowed to opt out of that law if he desires? If not then you are surely restricting people's freedoms (at least for 'victimless' crimes).
Or would you say that there is no role for government and that making laws etc should be done on a free enterprise basis?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Application of laws and collection of taxes are two seperate issues.
[\quote]
So how would you pay for the application of laws if not through taxes?
[quote]
Example. It is law that you must have vehicle insurance if you own a car. I prefer to have the choice to look for an insurer, rather than pay a tax to the government who would pay for any damage caused.
|
I would agree, but that is the way it is in most countries (I am having a hell of a job finding car insurance at the moment) and is not what we are talking about here.
quote:
Similarly, if health insurance or pensions were compulsory (as they are with the state scheme via NI and PAYE) I would rather choose the insurer/scheme than pay it direct to the government and receive benefit from the government. |
Again I agree, although I do still think there should be a safety net scheme which is provided by the state (by whatever means) for people who cannot afford health insurance otherwise. Clearly this extra saftey net has to be paid by some form of taxes. This is the way it is in most European countries.
I think that one should always have the option of paying for any additional service of this type (even extra private police to enforce order in your neighbourhood) as long as it is legal. However, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that essential services, such as health care and eductation, are provided at a basic level which is affordable for everyone. That has to be paid for by taxes (either to subsidize private companies to provide these services more cheaply or providing them directly through the State).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
9 ECAC - quote:
I'm not sure of your point. Are you arguing that 60's prosperity doesn't owe anything to a highly progressive tax structure? |
Yup. The tax rates weren't just "progressive", they were high for business and investment. Hard to argue high tax rates on job producers helps create jobs. But that was in the 50's, as I pointed out, JFK significantly reduced taxes across the board.
quote:
OK, then you should also consider that the 60's was also a period in which much social assistance and entitlements legislation gained ground. |
That can't account for the continued growth for the first half of the 60's and the Vietnam War stimulated the economy in the latter half. Welfare programs don't create wealth, creating jobs for poor people does. The expendable "income" of poor people on welfare does create jobs, but not when we consider how all that money would have been spent by the rightful owners. If a poor street thug robs me and goes out and buys a car, no jobs were created because I would have used my money in the economy too.
quote:
There's some merit in that argument. I would also say that the boom was created because large numbers of women entered the workforce, giving the private sector a huge pool of efficient, educated, cheap labor to plunder for a generation. |
That "plunder" is why we have such large middle and upper classes. And it was WWII that was the catalyst for women in the workplace. Unfortunately wars are great at stimulating economies, but the money ends up being wasted on destroying things instead of creating wealth.
quote:
I can't prove it, but I doubt it. I assume that the level of corporate tax evasion has always been some constant. |
Tax evasion is as American as apple pie 
but tax write-offs have been consistently reduced ever since the income tax was passed.
quote:
You do realize that that entire post was meant to be ironic, right? A sort of Swiftian Modest Proposal for the ideal state, where rich and poor alike are prohibited from sleeping under bridges. |
"Ironic"? I saw an implied charge of hypocrisy, an arguably valid charge.
quote:
No fair, you switched arguments. I was talking about the merits of progressive/regressive taxation -- you seem to be talking about the merits of any taxation at all. |
Not all taxation. I support lotteries, user fees, and any other ideas for raising revenue that doesn't require the legalization of stealing.
quote:
Polls suggest I'm in the center. |
I consider the welfare state and "progressive" taxation to be left wing. I believe they even appear in the Communist Manifesto.
quote:
I do think that your philosophy ultimately produces a very inefficient economy, as well as a political state that becomes more and more unstable as the number of desperately poor goes through the ceiling. |
While I'm not concerned with what is "efficient" or not, I still disagree. This nation became the wealthiest on the planet partly because of economic freedom and the work ethic. Welfare programs create dependency in many people thereby destroying their work ethic. I understand the desire to help the poor, but when that help leaves the realm of charitable deeds and becomes institutionalized, welfare becomes a drug.
quote:
As for morality -- I'm sure in your quieter moments you'd admit that this is not a question of moral vs. immoral arguments. |
Morality is key to my philosophy.
quote:
After all, it's hardly moral to allow people to starve, and it's hardly moral to allow large numbers of children with the misfortune to be born into poor households to grow up with no chance of getting out of poverty. |
I'll ask you what I asked Victor: how many people died of starvation before welfare programs were created? It's not a question of help for the poor or no help, it's a question of morality. It is moral to feed a neighbor who needs food, it isn't moral to steal to feed him. The victim may be forgiving of the theft, but forgiveness wouldn't be needed if the act was already moral.
quote:
Because of the free rider problem, the only workable mechanism so far for that sort of revenue collection is taxation. The poor do not have the money to pay user fees on their own services, obviously. May you be the brilliant economist who comes up with a better way. |
The poor can't afford taxes of any kind. My "system" of taxation allows for "free riders" and for communities to decide when people can ride free. People can understand why a poor person cannot afford a user fee while at the same time using moral pressure to compel those who can afford taxes to pay them.
Victor - quote:
-You know there are a lot of people that don't like that |
God only knows why, I like knowing which arguments are addressed to their corresponding points. I don't like reading thru someone's response to a post having to search for rebuttals while noticing many arguments were never addressed.
quote:
-Centralization enables increases in prosperity |
I disagree. Centralization does not allow for economic experimentation that accompanies a decentralized republic.
quote:
-I'd like to see you try to hold on to that house for over a year without government protection. |
I'd like to see you try to take my house without help from government. But can you explain why your comment here is related to what I said? This was my comment:
quote:
The US government under the Constitution is not communistic where government owns everything and allows us to live on it's land. It was not "government" that paid for my house, it was me. |
And in response you claim I would not be able to keep my house without government protection? When did I say I opposed having government help us secure our property?
quote:
-The government has the exclusive right to provide governamental services and charge taxes in exchange. |
Where did this "right" come from?
quote:
-How many people lived to be 65? |
Are you suggesting one need be over 65 to starve to death? Can you answer my question? It is rather relevant to your claim that masses of people would starve to death without welfare programs. Btw, while we're on this subject, you accused me of being a mass murderer for not supporting welfare. Are you a mass murderer for not transporting megatons of food and condoms to Africa?
quote:
-Ah, but it is. The government has the legal monopoly on violence (by definition). |
So now you're equating morality with legal status? There is no difference between a Mafia protection racket and "government" threatening us with violence to compel us to buy "services" we don't want, claiming government violence is "legal" is meaningless. Btw, you're wrong, you have the right to use violence in self-defence. That is where "government" gets it's moral authority to also use violence to protect you from attackers...
quote:
-I still agree with the idea of taxation. I don't like the government's policies, you don't like the idea of government. It's a matter of degree. |
Wrong again. I don't oppose all taxes, just some, and what they are sometimes spent on. Nor do I object to government, only government that commits the same immoral acts it is supposed to help us prevent or deter.
quote:
-But it does. Collectively they are a single entity. Individually they are not. To work, the government must be a monopoly. |
Individuals are collectively a single entity while individuals are not? That makes no sense. Explain why a group of individuals have a natural or moral monopoly on violence while individuals don't.
quote:
-Well taxes aren't so different from other fees for services provided. |
You claimed capitalism was theft if forced taxation for unwanted services was theft.
That "analogy" is false, under capitalism I buy services I want. That isn't true for many government services.
quote:
-You make very hasty assumptions. You have more of a voice in your govt. than I do. |
Meaning you don't or can't vote? Will you one day?
quote:
-The government is not out to make a profit. If three separate pieces of a 100 mile highway were owned by 3 different entities, you would have to pay 3 tolls. |
Actually government is in the "profit" business, it forces us taxpayers to pay higher wages for union workers to do jobs lower wage workers can do. Many government contracts require the prevailing (union) wage be paid by contractors. The roads are already built and maintained by the public so why would the roads cost more under my philosophy? I didn't say all or any roads must be turned over to private entities, that was apparently your assumption.
quote:
-They are voluntary, you can leave the country. |
So if an armed robber breaks into your home and demands that you either leave the country or hand him your money, your decision to leave or hand over the money is "voluntary"? Sheesh
quote:
The army can't just stop defending part of the country because you don't want to pay your taxes. |
You're making another assumption, I gladly pay taxes to support the military. But not everyone can afford those taxes, your system would force them to pay up making them even poorer while I would not force them at all.
quote:
-Like hell you did. Your statement in no way proves that libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy. |
You made the unsupported claim that libertarianism led to or caused anarchy. While you ignored the fact most libertarians support the Constitution and the forced taxes allowed by it prior to the Income Tax amendment, I asked if the American Revolution, which was fought and won without forced taxation, was anarchistic. And you agreed it was not! If a war fought without forced taxation was not anarchistic, it is illogical to claim a system without forced taxation is anarchistic. Btw, only about a third of Americans supported the Revolution with a much smaller percentage taking an active roll.
quote:
-It overrestricts a modern government. |
You didn't answer my question, is the US Constitution an anarchistic document?
quote:
-Why should we be bound by an agreement we never signed? |
I agree. And why are we bound by your desires?
Rogan - quote:
I am interested to know where Berzerker and Mr Dolphin would draw the line. What 'services' would you have a government provide by default which one could not opt out of (eg. laws)? |
None. But that would severly restrict the movement of those who opted out. Living without using public roads would be difficult at best, and the people who use the public roads should pay for them via user fees such as gas and/or car taxes. But these taxes would be primarily local so that the poor who cannot afford them could rely on the charity of those who can afford them.
quote:
And how would you justify these things to yourself 'morally' since the same 'moral' objections must still apply. |
The same moral objections would not apply.
quote:
I mean, if, for example, someone believed drink driving or speeding was morally OK and shouldn't be illegal, would you say that he should be allowed to opt out of that law if he desires? |
Nope. They can drive drunk on their own road, but not on public roads unless a majority of the public gives their permission. It's not about opting out of laws like prohibitions on murder for example, only that those who use services should pay for them instead of forcing others to subsidize them.
quote:
If not then you are surely restricting people's freedoms (at least for 'victimless' crimes). |
We are not free to drive on public roads, that act requires permission from the road's owners - the public - and drunk driving violates that permission. While I would oppose jailing a drunk driver who didn't hurt anyone, I would support withdrawing permission for that motorist (with maybe one chance).
quote:
Or would you say that there is no role for government and that making laws etc should be done on a free enterprise basis? |
Government should be limited to helping us protect ourselves from the initiation of force and fraud. This would limit government to actions we are morally empowered ourselves to commit. You have the moral right to use violence to defend yourself from attack, therefore, government - other people - also have the moral "right" to help you defend yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
None. But that would severly restrict the movement of those who opted out. Living without using public roads would be difficult at best, and the people who use the public roads should pay for them via user fees such as gas and/or car taxes. But these taxes would be primarily local so that the poor who cannot afford them could rely on the charity of those who can afford them.
|
So you would object to state funded police forces and military?
quote:
Government should be limited to helping us protect ourselves from the initiation of force and fraud. This would limit government to actions we are morally empowered ourselves to commit. You have the moral right to use violence to defend yourself from attack, therefore, government - other people - also have the moral "right" to help you defend yourself. |
And how does the state do that if it has no money?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Again I agree, although I do still think there should be a safety net scheme which is provided by the state (by whatever means) for people who cannot afford health insurance otherwise. Clearly this extra saftey net has to be paid by some form of taxes. This is the way it is in most European countries.
|
Here it is a one size fits all, with no care for efficiency and applicablity, only politics and public opinion. This leads to waste and mismanagement.
On pensions say, I would prefer a system where 1-2% of all wages are "forceably" paid to your private pension scheme. Shortfalls on contributions are then paid by the government into the pension scheme offered by the insurer, upto a limit of say £20 a week. This method is transparent and more akin to paying for a service than Robin Hoodesque"stealing". Ultimately I would rather pay someones contributions through taxes than pay their actual pension - its cheaper.
Ditto for other social "security" issues.
Don't get me wrong with my view of taxes as theft. I believe they are essential for the good of society, but I would rather have a more direct and directional control on where my money is going. I see the government as a middle man in many of these things - when they should really just be the regulator.
Last edited by Dauphin on 30-01-2002 at 23:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
|
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Similarly, if health insurance or pensions were compulsory (as they are with the state scheme via NI and PAYE) I would rather choose the insurer/scheme than pay it direct to the government and receive benefit from the government. |
-And put your life in the hands of some fatcat capitalists?
quote:
I consider the welfare state and "progressive" taxation to be left wing. I believe they even appear in the Communist Manifesto. |
-Funny, I consider lack of progressive taxation hardcore right-wing.
quote:
Morality is key to my philosophy. |
-Good for you. Your morality has no place in government.
quote:
Centralization does not allow for economic experimentation that accompanies a decentralized republic. |
-Yes, but centralization allows for large scale interstate commerce.
quote:
I'd like to see you try to take my house without help from government. But can you explain why your comment here is related to what I said? This was my comment:
quote:
The US government under the Constitution is not communistic where government owns everything and allows us to live on it's land. It was not "government" that paid for my house, it was me.
And in response you claim I would not be able to keep my house without government protection? When did I say I opposed having government help us secure our property? |
-Well taxes are your protection fee. And who said anything about take and me? Sure I might apply a rocket launcher to it if you brought down the government and caused your anarchistic dreams to come true, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and take a house.
quote:
Where did this "right" come from? |
-The fall of feudalism and the rise of the sovereign state.
quote:
Are you a mass murderer for not transporting megatons of food and condoms to Africa? |
-No. I pay my taxes. That absolves me of responsibility.
quote:
So now you're equating morality with legal status? |
-Who said anything about morality?
quote:
There is no difference between a Mafia protection racket and "government" threatening us with violence to compel us to buy "services" we don't want, claiming government violence is "legal" is meaningless. |
-The largest provider of government services in the area is the government. If the mafia can protect you better than the "government" they are the de facto government for that area.
quote:
Btw, you're wrong, you have the right to use violence in self-defence. That is where "government" gets it's moral authority to also use violence to protect you from attackers... |
-You may be right about self-defense, but that's far more limited then the government's right. You only have the right to prevent others from causing you harm, etc. The government also has the right to punish them after they have done their deeds. You don't have the right to exact your own retribution.
quote:
Individuals are collectively a single entity while individuals are not? That makes no sense. Explain why a group of individuals have a natural or moral monopoly on violence while individuals don't. |
-Makes no sense?? OK, think of 5 people. Individually, they are 5 people (5 distinct entities). They form a government where they all have equal say. The government is a single entity. A single entity can have a monopoly, 5 can't.
quote:
You claimed capitalism was theft if forced taxation for unwanted services was theft.
That "analogy" is false, under capitalism I buy services I want. That isn't true for many government services. |
-You can leave the country if you want. The analogy is quite true. The greater a monopoly is, and the more essential it's products the less you can do to avoid buying them.
quote:
Meaning you don't or can't vote? Will you one day? |
-Can't, maybe one day.
quote:
So if an armed robber breaks into your home and demands that you either leave the country or hand him your money, your decision to leave or hand over the money is "voluntary"? Sheesh |
-Of course. You're missing the one year+ notice that the armed "robber" gives you.
quote:
You didn't answer my question, is the US Constitution an anarchistic document? |
-I implied that yes it was, because of its limits on government.
quote:
You made the unsupported claim that libertarianism led to or caused anarchy. While you ignored the fact most libertarians support the Constitution and the forced taxes allowed by it prior to the Income Tax amendment, I asked if the American Revolution, which was fought and won without forced taxation, was anarchistic. |
-I argue that letting corporations have insane amounts of power which is what Libertarians want will very quickly lead to anarchy and/or feudalism.
quote:
I agree. And why are we bound by your desires? |
-You're not I just happen to agree with what the government is binding you to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
9 ECAC Titles
|
|
Berzerker,
I can respect that your economic theory derives from your idea of morality, but the essence of public policy is that it can't be argued on moral grounds unless there's an overwhelming agreement on both moral precepts and implications. In this case, there is not. You and many people equate forced taxation with theft. I and many people do not. You won't convince us (though of course you are welcome to try), and we won't convince you.
What's left is looking at the actual consequences of different policies, and determining which is better. I think education, housing, and nutrition are necessary prerequisites for decreasing the number of people who need such assistance. I think it is socially constructive to provide those without the means with a fighting chance to get out of poverty. Leaving it all to the invisible hand just creates a perpertual underclass.
The percentage of people living below the poverty line stayed fairly constant for most of US history, with a brief bulge during the Depression, until the social programs kicked in. It then dropped significantly until the Reagan rollback, at which point it started to rise again. Assistance is not immediate and is not total, but it does reduce poverty. It is the most effective strategy for ameliorating the grinding effects of poverty.
I know I can't convince you that the latter is a moral good in itself, so I'll simply reiterate that from a pragmatic point of view, it makes the most sense.
Last edited by 9 ECAC Titles on 31-01-2002 at 00:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Rogan - quote:
So you would object to state funded police forces and military? |
No, as long as these are funded thru voluntary means.
quote:
And how does the state do that if it has no money? |
The state will always have money, it prints it. The American Revolution was funded by lotteries and private donations.
Victor - quote:
-Funny, I consider lack of progressive taxation hardcore right-wing. |
Hardcore right wing would be no income tax, but if the lack of progressive taxes is right wing, wouldn't progressive taxes be left wing? 9 ECAC was identifying himself as a centrist, I merely pointed out that 2 of the major policies he supports are left wing.
quote:
-Good for you. Your morality has no place in government. |
Your immorality has no place in government.
quote:
-Yes, but centralization allows for large scale interstate commerce. |
Is this the only "centralization" you support? The Constitution you find so lacking of merit gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
quote:
-Well taxes are your protection fee. |
One tax, not all taxes.
quote:
And who said anything about take and me? |
Who said anything about not paying a tax for protection?
quote:
Sure I might apply a rocket launcher to it if you brought down the government and caused your anarchistic dreams to come true, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and take a house. |
This debate is getting pointless. You haven't proven that libertarianism is anarchism, yet you keep making the accusation.
quote:
-The fall of feudalism and the rise of the sovereign state. |
So the "right" of government to "legally" steal our money for services we don't want came from the fall of feudalism? 
quote:
-No. I pay my taxes. That absolves me of responsibility. |
Our taxes have stopped AIDS and starvation in Africa? So the fact you pay taxes means you are no longer responsible for feeding starving people?
quote:
-Who said anything about morality? |
You claimed government has a natural and legal monopoly on violence. Violence is a moral issue...
quote:
-The largest provider of government services in the area is the government. If the mafia can protect you better than the "government" they are the de facto government for that area. |
That doesn't "justify" Mafia or "government" protection rackets. It wouldn't be moral If I walked up to you and said, "give me your money and I will protect you from harm" with the clear implication that I will be among those who harm you if you don't pony up.
quote:
-You may be right about self-defense, but that's far more limited then the government's right. |
No, the government's "right" to defend you derives from your right to defend yourself. This is the key to understanding what is or is not a moral government.
quote:
You only have the right to prevent others from causing you harm, etc. The government also has the right to punish them after they have done their deeds. You don't have the right to exact your own retribution. |
Sure I do. That's why government has the "right" to extract retribution - because I have that right. If no government existed and someone murdered your child, you'd have the right to track them down and punish them.
quote:
-Makes no sense?? OK, think of 5 people. Individually, they are 5 people (5 distinct entities). They form a government where they all have equal say. The government is a single entity. A single entity can have a monopoly, 5 can't. |
First, I never said individuals had a natural monopoly on violence. You said government does, which isn't true.
Individuals have the right to use violence in their defense, therefore the "government" they form has the "right" to defend them as well. And like you said in regards to the Constitution we did not sign, others who did not agree to form this government of 5 people are not bound by their contract.
quote:
-You can leave the country if you want. The analogy is quite true. The greater a monopoly is, and the more essential it's products the less you can do to avoid buying them. |
You can leave if you don't like capitalism. See what a meaningless statement that is? The fact I need food to live doesn't mean the farmer I buy my food from is stealing my money. Your analogy is not accurate...
quote:
-Can't, maybe one day. |
If you can't vote, how can you claim paying taxes absolves you of helping starving people in Africa? If you can't vote and your taxes are not being used to feed those people, then your taxes are irrelevant and you are still responsible for feeding them or be guilty of mass murder.
quote:
-Of course. You're missing the one year+ notice that the armed "robber" gives you. |
So your decision to leave or hand over your money would be voluntary if the armed robber gave you advance notice? Here is a brief snippet from the definition of "voluntary": "unconstrained by interference". The armed robber/Mafia/government are interfering in your decision, in fact, they are the catalyst for your decision.
quote:
-I implied that yes it was, because of its limits on government |
When I asked you if the American Revolution was anarchistic, you "implied" it wasn't, yet the Constitution which does allow for much more government power is anarchistic? Here is the definition of "anarchy":
"Anarchy" - the absence of government: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.
The Constitution is not anarchistic just because it doesn't allow for all the government you think we need. Words have definitions...
quote:
-I argue that letting corporations have insane amounts of power which is what Libertarians want will very quickly lead to anarchy and/or feudalism. |
Corporations have enormous power today under the Democrats and Republicans, are they anarchists? And you're wrong about what Libertarians want anyway, try actually quoting the LP platform or some other Libertarian principle to support your accusation.
quote:
-You're not I just happen to agree with what the government is binding you to. |
And once you vote, we will be bound by your desires if your candidate wins and follows thru with your agenda.
9 ECAC - quote:
I can respect that your economic theory derives from your idea of morality, but the essence of public policy is that it can't be argued on moral grounds unless there's an overwhelming agreement on both moral precepts and implications. |
Was US slavery immoral? The fact many people didn't agree that slavery was immoral doesn't mean it wasn't. And actually there is an overwhelming agreement on moral precepts. Everyone agrees that murder and slavery are immoral when they are the victims, it is this "universality" reflected in the Golden Rule that creates the basis of morality. But because many people are hypocrites - that would treat others in ways they don't want to be treated - we have criminal behavior.
quote:
You and many people equate forced taxation with theft. I and many people do not. You won't convince us (though of course you are welcome to try), and we won't convince you. |
True, many people seem to believe that "government" magically transforms immoral behavior into moral or "non-moral" behavior. But this "logic" falls apart upon analysis when our side points to immoral acts committed by governments which cannot be defended even by those who believe "legalized" theft is morally different from illegal theft.
But I am glad you can debate this issue without being extremely offended, a number of people on your side view our arguments as personal attacks.
quote:
What's left is looking at the actual consequences of different policies, and determining which is better. |
I'm not a fan of utility. Terrible acts have been committed in the name of utility and what is best for society.
quote:
I think education, housing, and nutrition are necessary prerequisites for decreasing the number of people who need such assistance. |
I think these worthy goals should be achieved thru voluntary associations and not the threat of violence.
quote:
I think it is socially constructive to provide those without the means with a fighting chance to get out of poverty. Leaving it all to the invisible hand just creates a perpertual underclass. |
The "invisible hand" is a reference to the marketplace and the trillions of economic decisions we all make. And we have a perpetual underclass because of welfare...
quote:
The percentage of people living below the poverty line stayed fairly constant for most of US history, with a brief bulge during the Depression, until the social programs kicked in. |
Definitions of the word "poverty" have not remained the same over this time frame, so any claim about poverty rates must take those changes into account - they don't. We have people here with a relatively high standard of living compared to past generations
who still qualify as "impoverished". Plus, we went from a largely "poor" agrarian system to an industrial one with greater "wealth".
quote:
It is the most effective strategy for ameliorating the grinding effects of poverty. |
Welfare creates more dependency, jobs are more effective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
|
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Why not? If they provide it more cheaply and more extensively and get what you pay for. |
-I do not want profit motives to influence decisions on whether or not I get critical life-saving treatments. With private medical insurance you don't get what you need, you get what a company is willing to give you thinking about it's profits the whole time.
quote:
If you drove a car would you rather have car insurance policies with a car insurance company of your choice, or pay the government one size fits all taxes to cover road accident claims? |
-Irrelevant. Car insurance is not a matter of life and death. And I probably would like the one-size-fits-all because my private insurance rates are bound to be insanely high.
quote:
No, as long as these are funded thru voluntary means. |
-What about those people that will not pay then?
quote:
The state will always have money, it prints it. The American Revolution was funded by lotteries and private donations. |
-Under the Articles of Confederation the state was decidely penniless. Do you know what happens when a state just prints money without any form of stable income? That's right, it takes a wheelbarrowfull of money to buy a loaf of bread. Just printing money doesn't solve anything.
quote:
Hardcore right wing would be no income tax, but if the lack of progressive taxes is right wing, wouldn't progressive taxes be left wing? 9 ECAC was identifying himself as a centrist, I merely pointed out that 2 of the major policies he supports are left wing. |
-I would not call progressive taxes left wing simply because moderate right wingers should support them as well as everyone on the left. Of course the steepness of the increase in percent as you go up a tax bracket might change, but that's another matter.
quote:
This debate is getting pointless. You haven't proven that libertarianism is anarchism, yet you keep making the accusation. |
-And now you miss quote me. I said libertarianism leads to anarchy, not is. There is a fine difference there. A weak government like the libertarians want could never keep order in the modern world -> anarchy.
quote:
So the "right" of government to "legally" steal our money for services we don't want came from the fall of feudalism? |
-Yes. Sovereign states began collecting annual taxes whose amounts were specified rather than the irregular taxes collected by feudal lords. Business thrived on the certainty that all their money would not suddenly be demanded.
quote:
Our taxes have stopped AIDS and starvation in Africa? So the fact you pay taxes means you are no longer responsible for feeding starving people? |
-Yes. The ball is passed into the law maker's court. If they don't use my tax money to feed starving people that's their fault.
quote:
You claimed government has a natural and legal monopoly on violence. Violence is a moral issue... |
-Like Hell it is!
quote:
Sure I do. That's why government has the "right" to extract retribution - because I have that right. If no government existed and someone murdered your child, you'd have the right to track them down and punish them. |
-If no government existed you'd have no rights Claiming you have the right to take justice into your own hands only serves to strengthen my claim that you secretly want anarchy even though you claim to want limited government.
quote:
You said government does, which isn't true. |
-It's one way to define a government. Of course, it does.
quote:
The fact I need food to live doesn't mean the farmer I buy my food from is stealing my money. Your analogy is not accurate... |
-So then the fact that you need to live in a country that charges you tax money doesn't mean it's theft.
quote:
If you can't vote, how can you claim paying taxes absolves you of helping starving people in Africa? If you can't vote and your taxes are not being used to feed those people, then your taxes are irrelevant and you are still responsible for feeding them or be guilty of mass murder. |
-Quite on the contrary. I am contributing money to an organization, whose duty it is to prevent starvation. I personally have no obligation.
quote:
Words have definitions... |
-Definitions are socially constructed, and vary from person to person.
quote:
Libertarians want anyway, try actually quoting the LP platform or some other Libertarian principle to support your accusation. |
-They wish to gut the government's ability to govern. That makes them no better than anarchist rabble in my mind.
quote:
And once you vote, we will be bound by your desires if your candidate wins and follows thru with your agenda. |
-Your point? So will I. You get to vote too. It's entirely fair.
quote:
I'm not a fan of utility. Terrible acts have been committed in the name of utility and what is best for society. |
-Same with morality. Idealists are as or more guilty of atrocities than realists.
quote:
The "invisible hand" is a reference to the marketplace and the trillions of economic decisions we all make. And we have a perpetual underclass because of welfare... |
-Which is decidely smaller than in pre-welfare days.
quote:
Welfare creates more dependency, jobs are more effective. |
-Are you in favor of full employment?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Victor - quote:
-What about those people that will not pay then? |
Then others can determine if their reasons for not paying taxes to support the military are valid or not. For example, a poor person may not be able to afford that tax and others can take that factor into account. If someone with the means to pay the tax and won't, then others have the freedom of association to dis-associate from them thereby making life for them rather unpleasant.
quote:
-Under the Articles of Confederation the state was decidely penniless. Do you know what happens when a state just prints money without any form of stable income? That's right, it takes a wheelbarrowfull of money to buy a loaf of bread. Just printing money doesn't solve anything. |
I never said money should be printed without something to back it up. The state has resources to back up it's currency without the initiation of violence.
quote:
-I would not call progressive taxes left wing simply because moderate right wingers should support them as well as everyone on the left. |
Maybe those "moderate right wingers" aren't right wing. "Progressive" taxation appears in the Communist Manifesto I believe, that is not a right wing or centrist document.
quote:
-And now you miss quote me. I said libertarianism leads to anarchy, not is. There is a fine difference there. A weak government like the libertarians want could never keep order in the modern world -> anarchy. |
Maybe this "fine" distinction matters to you, it doesn't to me. You've yet to prove your claim...
quote:
-Yes. Sovereign states began collecting annual taxes whose amounts were specified rather than the irregular taxes collected by feudal lords. |
How does the alleged consistency of "legalized" theft create the "right" to steal legally?
quote:
Business thrived on the certainty that all their money would not suddenly be demanded. |
Robin Hood aside, where is the evidence feudal lords were in the habit of confiscating all wealth from subjects?
quote:
-Yes. The ball is passed into the law maker's court. If they don't use my tax money to feed starving people that's their fault. |
Then I am not responsible either. Are your parents mass murderers? I suggest you look the word "murder" up in a dictionary, it doesn't say a farmer is a mass murderer for not handing over the fruits of his labor.
Violence is not a moral issue? Does that mean murder is not immoral?
quote:
-If no government existed you'd have no rights |
I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, not endowed by "government". The tradition of rights comes from people who believed "government" was created to protect rights, not give them.
quote:
Claiming you have the right to take justice into your own hands only serves to strengthen my claim that you secretly want anarchy even though you claim to want limited government. |
Were people who resisted the Nazis from within their jurisdiction advocating anarchism? Of course not! They were fighting injustice - "taking justice into their own hands". I said if government did not exist, and someone murdered your child, you had the right - a just claim - to punish them. From this right - this just claim - derives government's "right" to punish the person who murdered your child.
quote:
-It's one way to define a government. Of course, it does. |
Prove that "government" has a natural monopoly on violence. I said it doesn't and you admitted in the case of self-defense that individuals also have the right to use violence. That refutes your claim that only government can use violence legitimately.
quote:
-So then the fact that you need to live in a country that charges you tax money doesn't mean it's theft. |
The farmer I might buy my food from doesn't invade my home to steal my money if I don't want his food.
quote:
-Quite on the contrary. I am contributing money to an organization, whose duty it is to prevent starvation. I personally have no obligation. |
And if they don't fulfill this "duty" you claim they have, then you're still responsible. If my "duty" is to feed you and I tell someone else to feed you instead and they fail, I'm not absolved of my responsibility to feed you.
quote:
-Definitions are socially constructed, and vary from person to person. |
Then they have no meaning. The compilers of dictionaries don't share your opinion.
quote:
-They wish to gut the government's ability to govern. That makes them no better than anarchist rabble in my mind. |
So prove it.
You will be violently imposing your desires on others when you vote for someone who does your bidding.
quote:
So will I. You get to vote too. It's entirely fair. |
Would it be "fair" if the majority "voted" to enslave or murder a minority? Many people can't vote, is it "fair" for those who do vote to subject them to the government violence used to enforce their votes?
quote:
-Same with morality. Idealists are as or more guilty of atrocities than realists. |
You mean left wingers, not "idealists". The fact some people commit crimes in the name of morality doesn't mean their crimes were moral. But utilitarians and fascists don't need morality to justify their acts, only that their acts were utilitarian.
If enslaving 5% of the population did indeed serve a utilitarian purpose, then that would be the "justification" for the act of slavery, not morality.
quote:
-Which is decidely smaller than in pre-welfare days. |
Like I explained to ECAC, we went from a largely agrarian system to an industrial one. It was this shift that gradually created large middle and upper classes, not welfare or the lack thereof. The relevant question is whether or not poor people in the welfare system "graduate" up the economic scale faster or slower than poor people who don't rely on welfare. Poor immigrants who don't use welfare show that the work ethic is what leads people out of poverty, not welfare.
quote:
-Are you in favor of full employment? |
I'm in favor of freedom. Not everyone wants to work all the time, therefore, full-employment won't ever happen except under authoritarianism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Here it is a one size fits all, with no care for efficiency and applicablity, only politics and public opinion. This leads to waste and mismanagement.
On pensions say, I would prefer a system where 1-2% of all wages are "forceably" paid to your private pension scheme. Shortfalls on contributions are then paid by the government into the pension scheme offered by the insurer, upto a limit of say £20 a week.
|
I actually agree with this 
This is (almost) how health insurance is done in Germany. You can pick the insurer you want but you must have health insurance of a certain standard. To prevent the insurance companies charging the Earth (since you have to have insurance by law) there are government subsidised schemes (not govt run though) where people below certain incomes can get insurance more cheaply.
Having lived in Germany and Britain have to agree that this is a much better system than the NHS. Although I paid quite a bit more in Germany, the quality of care was far higher, and it seems much more efficient. For example, I found that I was losing sensation in my hands and arms, so I wenrt to the doctor. The very same day I was given a brain scan (it turned out to be a brain infection) and was admitted to hospital. I am faily sure this would have taken weeks on the NHS.
As for pensions, the UK is miles ahead of Germany. In Germnay everything is done by the state, but in the UK most people have private pensions now (although there is still the state pension to fall back on, it is completely pitiful). I think this system works pretty well - in fact, it can be argued that the UK has the best pensions market in the world. I can see the state pension disappearing altogether pretty soon.
I would still argue that there are things which should be centrally controlled, like the Police and the army, since privately funded versions are extremely prone to corruption. (Imagine having an privately funded army who could be bought by your enemy!) And of course money has to be raised to pay for subsidising those who are too poor to pay for essential services.
I do not believe Berzerker's idea of raising money on a voluntary basis would work. If I refuse to pay for the Police force, does that mean that I can be robbed or murdered without consequence? If my town opts out of the army is Russia free to conquor it without interference?
And if the government can raise money so easily, why wouldn't everyone be doing it? I don't think the UN Refugee Agency has huge surpluses of cash....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
9 ECAC Titles
|
|
Berzerker,
> 9 ECAC was identifying himself as a centrist, I merely pointed out that 2 of the major policies he supports are left wing.
I also oppose protectionism and support high military spending and inflation-indexing cap gains. That doesn't make me right wing. It makes me, well -- me. I don't align well with either fringe (I am waiting for one of them to align with me), so I'm centrist by default.
> Was US slavery immoral? The fact many people didn't agree that slavery was immoral doesn't mean it wasn't.
Of course not. But it did mean that in a republic you couldn't simply force the decision on the country on the basis of morality. That is now how our system works. Abortion and the death penalty are classic current examples. I expect them to be argued on utilitarian grounds forever, since the only way for one side to win, as in the case of slavery, is the violence you deplore.
> And actually there is an overwhelming agreement on moral precepts. Everyone agrees that murder and slavery are immoral when they are the victims, it is this "universality" reflected in the Golden Rule that creates the basis of morality.
The nice thing about precepts is that they exist in a Platonic cloud world without application. When it comes to implications, it breaks down quickly. Not because of hypocrisy, but because life is complicated. "Thou shall not kill" is as straightforward as it gets, but killing people is socially approved of in many instances.
> But because many people are hypocrites - that would treat others in ways they don't want to be treated - we have criminal behavior.
This is true of some criminal behavior -- Enron executives are certainly hypocrites. Other criminal behavior is the result of dire need. Your kid starves or you steal the loaf of bread. Not a tough choice. The behavior is still criminal, but it's constructive to try to address the cause as well as the result.
> True, many people seem to believe that "government" magically transforms immoral behavior into moral or "non-moral" behavior.
Save the rhetoric for talk radio. Government is collective action, and people en mass are just as responsible for behaving morally as people individually. In fact, government should be held to a higher level, because its ability to harm is magnified. Government immunity from criticism is not my argument, just as presumably entrepeneurial immunity from criticism is not yours.
> But I am glad you can debate this issue without being extremely offended, a number of people on your side view our arguments as personal attacks.
I'm not really sure I have a "side" in this argument. I see people on the fringes both left and right who insist upon the whole-cloth adoption of their ideologies, and I'm willing to engage equally with both by saying -- no, we who are the vast center do not accept your extremism. I would have exactly the same degree of disagreement with a Marxist.
In my experience, the spokepersons for the left, the center, and the right are identical in terms of intelligence, maturity, rhetorical skill, sincerity, etc. Some are twisted ideologues, some are demogogic opportunists, some are "City on the Hill" idealists, some are clear-thinking indviduals arguing from their personal experiences. I ignore the first two groups, suffer the third gladly (without idealism, life would be intolerable), and hang out with the fourth group because they tend to have the best sense of humor.
> I'm not a fan of utility. Terrible acts have been committed in the name of utility and what is best for society.
And greater terrible acts have been committed in the name of morality and saving the soul of humanity. I am not fond of reducing policy to J.S. Mill calculations, but in intractible cases it's the lesser of two evils.
Also: it allows for evolution as circumstances change. The scales of utility may tip a different way tomorrow, but a moral argument is set in theological concrete.
> Welfare creates more dependency, jobs are better.
This is a straw man argument -- everyone agrees that jobs are better than welfare. The question is what to do with those currently without the means to get or hold jobs.
More important, the first clause is an overgeneralizing. Abuse of welfare creates dependency, just as abuse of pain killers creates dependency. That doesn't mean we stop using pain killers -- they have extremely beneficial results in the appropriate context and dosage.
Last edited by 9 ECAC Titles on 01-02-2002 at 00:15
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
|
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
If someone with the means to pay the tax and won't, then others have the freedom of association to dis-associate from them thereby making life for them rather unpleasant. |
-Is that so inherently different from the status quo?
quote:
Maybe those "moderate right wingers" aren't right wing. "Progressive" taxation appears in the Communist Manifesto I believe, that is not a right wing or centrist document. |
-Is everything in the Communist Manifesto communist? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but doesn't progressive taxation also appear in The Wealth of Nations? (No I don't have time to read that for myself since I'm being assigned an average of 200 pages a week for Intl. Affairs classes)
quote:
Maybe this "fine" distinction matters to you |
-Intent doesn't matter
quote:
How does the alleged consistency of "legalized" theft create the "right" to steal legally? |
-Legal precedent
quote:
Robin Hood aside, where is the evidence feudal lords were in the habit of confiscating all wealth from subjects? |
-Feudal lords routinely taxed subjects for all they could squeeze out of them. Something that sucked when you consider the overlapping authority so common in that era. (Read The Sovereign State and its Competitors by Hendrik Spruyt if you want more info about how the nation state beats feudalism.)
quote:
Then I am not responsible either. Are your parents mass murderers? I suggest you look the word "murder" up in a dictionary, it doesn't say a farmer is a mass murderer for not handing over the fruits of his labor. |
-That's the beauty of philosophy isn't it? It allows interesting statements like "taxation is theft."
quote:
Violence is not a moral issue? Does that mean murder is not immoral? |
-Only if you chose to view it in moral terms.
quote:
I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence. It says we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, not endowed by "government". The tradition of rights comes from people who believed "government" was created to protect rights, not give them. |
-That theory is all nice and good, but if you have no one to protect your rights they do not exist. Protection of a right effectively creates it. I have problems with language of the Declaration of Independence because of all that creator nonsense.
quote:
Were people who resisted the Nazis from within their jurisdiction advocating anarchism? |
-Rebels. Sometimes rebellion is right, sometimes it isn't. Rebellion is fundamentally different from someone deciding to avenge the murder of a loved one instead of letting the government handle that.
quote:
I said if government did not exist, and someone murdered your child, you had the right - a just claim - to punish them. From this right - this just claim - derives government's "right" to punish the person who murdered your child. |
-I wouldn't really call that a right. No one would stop you (well except for the target), but that doesn't mean you have a right. If I wanted to stop you I could do that too.
quote:
The farmer I might buy my food from doesn't invade my home to steal my money if I don't want his food. |
-Neither does the government if you don't live on it's land. You don't see the Romanian government comming after me seeking tax money. If you take the farmer's money and refuse to pay for it, that's like living here and refusing to pay the taxes.
quote:
Then they have no meaning. The compilers of dictionaries don't share your opinion. |
-Who says this is my opinion? You merely interpreted my statement as saying such. While the statement might have implied it, it did not explicitly state that. (Am I messing with your mind yet? Or do I have to brush up on my postmodernist critique?)
quote:
You will be violently imposing your desires on others when you vote for someone who does your bidding. |
-So voting is tyranny then?
quote:
Would it be "fair" if the majority "voted" to enslave or murder a minority? Many people can't vote, is it "fair" for those who do vote to subject them to the government violence used to enforce their votes?[/qoute]
-I don't vote, and I'm missing key civil liberties. Don't talk to me about what's fair.
[quote]You mean left wingers, not "idealists". The fact some people commit crimes in the name of morality doesn't mean their crimes were moral. |
-By idealists I mean idealists, not left-wingers. Realism/Idealism is independent of political orientation.
quote:
But utilitarians and fascists don't need morality to justify their acts, only that their acts were utilitarian. |
-Whoa! Lumping all fascists with utilitarians doesn't work, buddy. Explain to me what the utility of exterminating the Jews is?
quote:
If enslaving 5% of the population did indeed serve a utilitarian purpose, then that would be the "justification" for the act of slavery, not morality. |
-Morality is an idealist concept. Idealists would murder 50% of the world population if they found them immoral. Look at alQueda.
quote:
Like I explained to ECAC, we went from a largely agrarian system to an industrial one. It was this shift that gradually created large middle and upper classes, not welfare or the lack thereof. |
-This shift created a small class of rich fatcats, and a relatively small middle class. Look at the Gilded Age. The Progressive movement increased the size of the middle class and made life better for the working class.
quote:
The relevant question is whether or not poor people in the welfare system "graduate" up the economic scale faster or slower than poor people who don't rely on welfare. Poor immigrants who don't use welfare show that the work ethic is what leads people out of poverty, not welfare. |
-That's rather irrelevant. You still can't starve the unemployed.
quote:
I'm in favor of freedom. Not everyone wants to work all the time, therefore, full-employment won't ever happen except under authoritarianism. |
-Good that you caught that. I might have had to call you a communist But seriously, our economy can never support full employment regardless of desire, thus we have to have something to take care of the 4-5% of people who will be unemployed at any given time.
quote:
Is that why the French (with insurance policies) have no waiting lists and the best health care system in the world, and the British (with no insurance policies) have 18 month waiting lists. |
-No, that's why the Canadians with no insurance policies provide cheaper, more reliable health care than the Americans. In America if I want to even see a doctor I've got to fork over money. He doesn't have to tell me anything. He can tell me nothing or "I don't know" and still get a decent sum of money. That encourages people not to see the doctor until something really bad happens, which rather prevents effective preventive care which drives up medical costs, which discourages people from seeing a doctor, which... you get the point.... or maybe you don't.
If you think the NHS is bad, try being poor in America... (I'm not poor, but I'm appalled at the cost of health care here. That and the fact I was told that my immunization record was forged when I came here, because the Americans were so far behind on their vaccine technology.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Rogan - quote:
I do not believe Berzerker's idea of raising money on a voluntary basis would work. If I refuse to pay for the Police force, does that mean that I can be robbed or murdered without consequence? |
Not without consequence, others would still have the moral authority to defend or avenge you. But you've highlighted a good reason for people to pay taxes for police, true?
quote:
If my town opts out of the army is Russia free to conquor it without interference? |
Your town wouldn't opt out. If they did, the rest of us would get angry and boycott your town.
quote:
And if the government can raise money so easily, why wouldn't everyone be doing it? I don't think the UN Refugee Agency has huge surpluses of cash.... |
The UN is not a government.
9 ECAC - quote:
I also oppose protectionism |
quote:
and support high military spending |
So did Stalin.
quote:
It makes me, well -- me. I don't align well with either fringe (I am waiting for one of them to align with me), so I'm centrist by default. |
Hehe, but progressive taxation and welfare states are not just left wing, they are left wing principles. Debating how much capital gains should be taxed within certain ranges or what tariff levels should be are not big issues. When someone says they are a "centrist", that means they support left wing policies on some issues and right wing policies on other issues. But when the left wing policies they support appear in the Communist Manifesto while the right wing policies are not really right wing or minor in their impact, "centrism" is more left than right.
I hope you meant "of course".
quote:
But it did mean that in a republic you couldn't simply force the decision on the country on the basis of morality. |
We're told a war was fought to end slavery, that's forcing morality on slaveholders. Is murder immoral? When murder was outlawed, wasn't morality being imposed on the immoral?
quote:
That is now how our system works. |
Our system works by not imposing morality on the immoral?
quote:
Abortion and the death penalty are classic current examples. I expect them to be argued on utilitarian grounds forever, since the only way for one side to win, as in the case of slavery, is the violence you deplore. |
These issues are not debated based on utilitarian grounds, but on moral grounds.
Btw, I don't deplore violence, just the initiation of violence.
quote:
The nice thing about precepts is that they exist in a Platonic cloud world without application. |
We prosecute murderers, that's the real world application of a moral precept.
quote:
When it comes to implications, it breaks down quickly. Not because of hypocrisy, but because life is complicated. "Thou shall not kill" is as straightforward as it gets, but killing people is socially approved of in many instances. |
The translation is, "Thou shalt not murder". And yes, criminality is hypocrisy because even criminals don't want to be the victims of crime. That's what the Golden Rule is about, the hypocrisy of doing to others what you don't want others doing to you.
quote:
This is true of some criminal behavior -- Enron executives are certainly hypocrites. Other criminal behavior is the result of dire need. Your kid starves or you steal the loaf of bread. Not a tough choice. |
There are differing levels of immorality. If you robbed someone to feed your starving child, would you still offer an explanation to your victim asking them for forgiveness?
quote:
Save the rhetoric for talk radio. |
"Rhetoric"?
quote:
Government is collective action, and people en mass are just as responsible for behaving morally as people individually. |
Government is not collective action, it is the action of one group of people directed at another group of people. And while you may not like this truth, many people act differently to others when "government" is the medium through which they act. Most people would not break into their neighbor's home to rob them, but when "government" is doing this on their behalf, they view the act differently. The individual theft they agree is immoral, the "collective" theft is "non-moral" or "moral".
quote:
And greater terrible acts have been committed in the name of morality and saving the soul of humanity. |
And obviously these horrendous acts committed in the name of morality were not moral, but how does one claim a horrendous act committed in the name of utility did not achieve that utility? We could run off to a poor country and enslave a portion of the people to achieve a utilitarian goal, but that would still be immoral. Would you argue against such a policy on utilitarian or moral grounds?
quote:
The scales of utility may tip a different way tomorrow, but a moral argument is set in theological concrete. |
Morality and theology are two different issues. Slavery was and will always be immoral, but the utility of slavery may change back and forth.
quote:
This is a straw man argument -- everyone agrees that jobs are better than welfare. The question is what to do with those currently without the means to get or hold jobs. |
It isn't a strawman argument. When the system of welfare creates dependency on welfare instead of the work ethic, welfare is no longer a utilitarian "achievement".
quote:
More important, the first clause is an overgeneralizing. |
No it isn't, I said welfare creates more dependency, not that it makes everyone on it dependent for ever.
Victor - quote:
-Is that so inherently different from the status quo? |
Yes, under the status quo, people are put in cages or killed for refusing to pay a tax.
quote:
-Is everything in the Communist Manifesto communist? |
No.
quote:
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but doesn't progressive taxation also appear in The Wealth of Nations? |
I haven't read it either.
quote:
-Intent doesn't matter |
You claimed libertarianism leads to anarchism and have repeatedly accused me of wanting this. Maybe you see a distinction, I don't.
quote:
-Legal precedent |
We are talking about different issues. I'm talking about "rights" that come from the "creator" and you're talking about "rights" that come from legal status.
quote:
-Feudal lords routinely taxed subjects for all they could squeeze out of them. |
Would these be people living on the feudal lord's lands? Would "routinely be somethin like annually? You said they confiscated all wealth, now you're limiting that to what could be squeezed out of them.
quote:
Something that sucked when you consider the overlapping authority so common in that era. |
If this was so wrong, why would you point to a practice you despise to "justify" similar practices today?
quote:
-That's the beauty of philosophy isn't it? It allows interesting statements like "taxation is theft." |
That's the beauty of ducking questions, it allows one to avoid the embarrassment of having "logic" turned back on them.
quote:
-Only if you chose to view it in moral terms |
You don't view murder in moral terms? Does that mean murder is or is not wrong?
quote:
-That theory is all nice and good |
It's not a theory, just the truth.
quote:
if you have no one to protect your rights they do not exist. |
Sure they do. The fact some people violate the rights of others doesn't mean rights don't exist. A "right" is a moral or just claim that exists whether or not government exists. If someone tries to murder you, and there is no one there other than you to stop them, you still have the right to defend yourself.
quote:
Protection of a right effectively creates it. |
So if "government" is not there to stop an intruder, you no longer have any right to protect yourself and your property?
quote:
I have problems with language of the Declaration of Independence because of all that creator nonsense. |
All that "creator nonsense" was merely the reflection that we didn't create ourselves. Notice how Jefferson didn't mention "God" or "Yahweh"?
quote:
-Rebels. Sometimes rebellion is right, sometimes it isn't. Rebellion is fundamentally different from someone deciding to avenge the murder of a loved one instead of letting the government handle that. |
Do you remember what we were talking about? I said this:
quote:
Sure I do. That's why government has the "right" to extract retribution - because I have that right. If no government existed and someone murdered your child, you'd have the right to track them down and punish them. |
You then accused me of being an anarchist instead of responding to my point. Why does "government" have the "right" to exact retribution? Because we as individuals have that right, not because "government" is endowed with "rights" we don't have.
quote:
-I wouldn't really call that a right |
I would, and so would the people who created the tradition of "rights". While there are "civil rights" created through legislation, natural "rights" are just or moral claims that exist regardless of government. That's why people who resisted the Nazis were "right", because they had natural rights superior to whatever governmental rights the Nazis claimed.
quote:
-Neither does the government if you don't live on it's land. |
Again, this was and is not a communist nation where "government" owns our land. Your analogies require government ownership of all the land and that just isn't factual.
quote:
You don't see the Romanian government comming after me seeking tax money. |
Nor does the US government come to me demanding taxes based on the fiction it owns my land.
quote:
If you take the farmer's money and refuse to pay for it, that's like living here and refusing to pay the taxes. |
You mean the farmer's food. When the farmer sells me food, I want the food and pay for it. That is not analogous to those government services I don't want.
quote:
-Who says this is my opinion? You merely interpreted my statement as saying such. |
You said this:
quote:
-Definitions are socially constructed, and vary from person to person. |
This is the opinion dictionary compilers don't share with you.
quote:
While the statement might have implied it, it did not explicitly state that. (Am I messing with your mind yet? Or do I have to brush up on my postmodernist critique?) |
Hehe, don't even get started with postmodernism.
quote:
-So voting is tyranny then? |
It is given your politics. But this assumes your candidate gets elected and follows thru with your agenda.
quote:
-I don't vote, and I'm missing key civil liberties. Don't talk to me about what's fair. |
But what about my questions?
quote:
-Whoa! Lumping all fascists with utilitarians doesn't work, buddy. |
Sure it does, both claim to want what is best for "society". "The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini
quote:
Explain to me what the utility of exterminating the Jews is? |
Why? Did I say exterminating Jews served a utilitarian purpose? What if we abducted some people from a poor country and enslaved them? That would serve a utilitarian purpose, but would still be immoral. Utilitarian goals are not always moral goals, that's why I'm not a fan of utilitarianism.
quote:
-Morality is an idealist concept. |
Meaning we should strive for or ignore morality?
quote:
Idealists would murder 50% of the world population if they found them immoral. Look at alQueda. |
First you claim my view is "idealistic", then argue against my "idealism" by pointing to Al Qaeda?
quote:
-This shift created a small class of rich fatcats, and a relatively small middle class. Look at the Gilded Age. The Progressive movement increased the size of the middle class and made life better for the working class. |
First, the industrial revolution could not transform the country over night. Would we be where we are now if we had remained agrarian and "progressive"? Nope. And it wasn't the "progressive" movement that created a large middle class, it was the GI Bill and the aftermath of WWII.
quote:
-That's rather irrelevant. |
Why?
quote:
You still can't starve the unemployed. |
Who said anything about starving the unemployed? I'll ask you again, how many people starved to death before welfare programs? I wish you would answer this question given your repeated accusations of mass murder for opposing socialistic programs. Stalin accused Ukrainian farmers of "hoarding" food before launching his policies that did starve millions to death. (Just a snippet of history ).
quote:
-Good that you caught that. I might have had to call you a communist |
Lol, I do have to take a second and look for traps But communists aren't the only authoritarians...
quote:
But seriously, our economy can never support full employment regardless of desire, thus we have to have something to take care of the 4-5% of people who will be unemployed at any given time. |
That's what I hear from people with more economic knowledge than me. Whether or not it's true is another matter. I understand our current system - the Fed -is designed to prevent "full" employment, but that doesn't mean those who are unemployed will starve. If this was true, millions would have died of starvation before welfare.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
|
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
The UN is not a government. |
-Exactly because it has severely limited powers.
quote:
Is murder immoral? When murder was outlawed, wasn't morality being imposed on the immoral? |
-Banning murder also has great utilitarian value too.
quote:
Btw, I don't deplore violence, just the initiation of violence. |
-Therefore by Christian standards of morality you are immoral.
quote:
No it isn't, I said welfare creates more dependency, not that it makes everyone on it dependent for ever. |
-Dependence is better than misery.
quote:
Yes, under the status quo, people are put in cages or killed for refusing to pay a tax. |
-Really Name the last person who was given the death penalty for tax evasion.
[qoute]No[/quote]
-Then why assume that progressive taxes are communist?
quote:
You claimed libertarianism leads to anarchism and have repeatedly accused me of wanting this. Maybe you see a distinction, I don't. |
-No, I accused you of wanting something that leads to this. You may not realize it, but your policies lead to anarchy.
quote:
We are talking about different issues. I'm talking about "rights" that come from the "creator" and you're talking about "rights" that come from legal status. |
-And I'm saying the creator is mythical BS, therefore not a source of rights.
quote:
Would these be people living on the feudal lord's lands? |
-Yes. But those lands were not well defined, so you could have multiple lords extracting money out of you.
quote:
Would "routinely be somethin like annually? |
-No, it would be when the lord felt like it. In those days the only organization that even really kept exact track of what time it was was the Church. With the increase in trade in the 11th century a merchant class also emerged, which needed to keep track of time for its business dealings.
quote:
You said they confiscated all wealth, now you're limiting that to what could be squeezed out of them. |
-No, I said, squeezed them for what they were worth. You can't really confiscate a house... who do you sell it to? (Remember you've already extracted what it was feasible to extract.) They would take what they could reasonably expect to turn into money to pay for their armies... obviously there would be more peaceful times when they would not do this as often as when they were at war, but that just goes to show you that there was no regular schedule.
quote:
That's the beauty of ducking questions, it allows one to avoid the embarrassment of having "logic" turned back on them. |
-But only when one sucks at ducking questions. I simply don't care to read through my old posts to look at all the points you missed.
quote:
You don't view murder in moral terms? Does that mean murder is or is not wrong? |
-Murder is extremely counter-productive in utilitarian terms.
quote:
It's not a theory, just the truth. |
-There is no absolute truth, all is a theory, some better than others. Please, we can't all claim what we believe in is the truth and expect to be believed. The best any of us can do, is a pretty good approximation of what is true.
quote:
Sure they do. The fact some people violate the rights of others doesn't mean rights don't exist. A "right" is a moral or just claim that exists whether or not government exists. If someone tries to murder you, and there is no one there other than you to stop them, you still have the right to defend yourself. |
-I view a right as something you are entitled to.
quote:
So if "government" is not there to stop an intruder, you no longer have any right to protect yourself and your property? |
-Discussing rights in a lawless society is meaningless.
quote:
All that "creator nonsense" was merely the reflection that we didn't create ourselves. Notice how Jefferson didn't mention "God" or "Yahweh"? |
-Evolution can't endow anyone with non-physical things.
quote:
Why does "government" have the "right" to exact retribution? |
-Because it is their job to prevent future transgressions. By punishing the guilty they serve to discourage future crimes.
quote:
Because we as individuals have that right, not because "government" is endowed with "rights" we don't have. |
-If individuals claimed that right society would fall apart. Imagine a scenario.
You live in a nice house. You have a neighbor you know is envious but hasn't tried anything funny yet. One night you go away, and some burglar breaks into your house and steals some of your valuables. This burglar is not your neighbor, but you don't know that. You go over to your neighbor's house with a shotgun and demand he return your stuff or else... he, not having it, is in a lose-lose situation. People taking the law into their own hands doesn't work.
quote:
Again, this was and is not a communist nation where "government" owns our land. Your analogies require government ownership of all the land and that just isn't factual. |
-No, my theory only requires that the government is sovereign over the land.
quote:
You mean the farmer's food. When the farmer sells me food, I want the food and pay for it. That is not analogous to those government services I don't want. |
-The government is just a farmer who only sells his food in bulk. You might not want all the components, but it's an all or nothing deal. Now if you want to whine about that, that's different than arguing that Capital Gains Taxes should be abolished, which really was the matter at hand.
quote:
This is the opinion dictionary compilers don't share with you. |
-Have you not yet learned that not all statements I make necessarily represent my own opinions? I've done just enough high school debate to sometimes want to argue a point that I don't necessarily support. When I break out the postmodernism... that's one of those times Usually Othertimes I really mean it.
quote:
It is given your politics. But this assumes your candidate gets elected and follows thru with your agenda. |
-Which we know he won't... especially not my agenda If someone pushing my agenda got elected you'd see NASA budget increases
quote:
Sure it does, both claim to want what is best for "society". "The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini |
-That sounds very idealistic. It could also be utilitarian, or realistic (if it's a ploy to get/maintain power). One quote rarely allows you to know exactly what a person thought like.
quote:
Why? Did I say exterminating Jews served a utilitarian purpose? What if we abducted some people from a poor country and enslaved them? That would serve a utilitarian purpose, but would still be immoral. Utilitarian goals are not always moral goals, that's why I'm not a fan of utilitarianism. |
-I'm saying extermination of the Jews was a sign of idealism. Hitler's ideal of a perfect Aryan race. Didn't do much utilitarianly, didn't do much realisticly...
quote:
Meaning we should strive for or ignore morality? |
-Meaning realists have little use for it
quote:
First you claim my view is "idealistic", then argue against my "idealism" by pointing to Al Qaeda? |
-Fun, no? Just goes to show you how wide a range idealism encompasses. I'd call Wilson an idealist, and Bin Laden an idealist. Both share the fact that they are not realists.
quote:
I'll ask you again, how many people starved to death before welfare programs? |
-Don't have figures... but it's irrelevant. Society has since changed. In those days you could count on your extended family. Now, they probably don't even live in the same city.
quote:
But communists aren't the only authoritarians... |
-True, but fascists would justify full employment for utilitarian reasons (So would some communists)
On the full employment thing:
Full employment means the supply of workers is low, wages go up. With wages going up across the board, companies' profits go down. They increase prices to compensate, and we have inflation. 0% unemployment implies a very severe shortage of labor, hence strong inflation->bad thing.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-01-2002 09:32
Perhaps, I'll return after the weekend or maybe this thread will be buried by then...
|