No Taxation...Donation!

[Birdy]

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

I suppose you support taxation for the same reason?

I guess it's at least one of the basic beliefs that lead me to it.

[Equilux]

"Thank you ... for not neglecting a very obvious responsibility you have, unlike some that try to uphold some very childish beliefs about radical freedom"

or maybe

"Thank you ... for have the mental capacity to figure out that if action or inaction has such grave consequences you do have an obligation and it being "forced" has nothing to do with anything"

Try again, this time without the intellectual dishonesty.




intellectual dishonesty ... that's rich coming from you, holy shit.

"You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation" ... really ... good luck with your friends and family ...

Word of warning to all; myrkul is what happens when you try to apply economic theory to other fields where it obviously does not belong. Fields like ethics for example. Grow the hell up man, really.

[myrkul]

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

I suppose you support taxation for the same reason?

I guess it's at least one of the basic beliefs that lead me to it.

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:


Thank you, Penn Jillette.

[Traktion]

...snip...

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Its inefficient on 2 levels:  

1. The value of the house has been lost - for all you know the owner had senile dementia or was illiterate or had some other perfectly valid reason for sucking at paperwork.  So wealth has been destroyed for no good reason.
2. its cheaper to collect things like the costs of police, roads, fire service, schools and health through the tax system than to have separate bureacracies for each.  So even if everyone pays the $75, its still inefficient.

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning  + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

BTW, there are many inefficient state departments which would never survive in a voluntary model. I don't know where you get the idea from that the state is efficient, tbh.

Again, there may have been a valid reason for the person not paying $75.  You want to make this a morality play - it's not.

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like.  Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

Someone may have a valid reason for not paying a tax, but that doesn't stop the state throwing them in jail.

If someone can't figure out how to pay £75 a year for insurance, they have bigger problems... such as buying food. Let's stop with this silly excuse.

Taxation is not an efficient way to pay for monopolistic services. There is no competition for said departments, which gives little pressure for them to improve their service.

Even if they were more efficient, it doesn't justify using force to make everyone pay for them, whether they use/want them or not.

[Birdy]

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:
*picture*

Thank you, Penn Jillette.

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.
But you also should do some help yourself.

There is no competition for said departments, which gives little pressure for them to improve their service.

This is not entirely true, you could go to another state, if you don't like yours.
It's difficult though due to different languages and some regulations.

[Traktion]

If the person had paid for people to put the fire out, the house wouldn't have been lost. The cost of the loss falls on the home owner too, who now no longer has a home, because they didn't pay a small fee.

community wealth - 1 house. And it will not be the only one.
"If's" aren't gonna change that.

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

It's the job they accepted to do and are paid for (at least in our society), so it's not slavery.

You ignore the loss incurred by the fire fighters. Their time, risk and labour is not free and they could have been doing something else.

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

What we are discussing is paying $75 per year for fire protection, which those who lost their home refused to do. Therefore, the fire fighters have not been paid in this case.

The alternative of the fire fighters being paid via taxation is just treating everyone else as slaves; forcing people to labour, in order to extract wealth from them, is slavery.

[Traktion]

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

You want to lock people in cages for being 'an ass'?

There are some real shits on this planet, many of whom I would like nothing to do with. This doesn't mean I get to lock them in cages, just because I don't like them.

[myrkul]

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

Thank you, Penn.

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.
But you also should do some help yourself.

Indeed. As Penn says, there is great joy in helping others. I object not to the helping, but to you pointing a gun in my face and telling me I have to help.

[Traktion]

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:
*picture*

Thank you, Penn Jillette.

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.
But you also should do some help yourself.

There is no competition for said departments, which gives little pressure for them to improve their service.

This is not entirely true, you could go to another state, if you don't like yours.
It's difficult though due to different languages and some regulations.

Can you define 'good things' objectively? Will everyone share the same opinion? If this was the case, you wouldn't need taxation at all - people would be willing to make the sacrifices without force.

As soon as you use force, to implement some subjective 'good', you are on a slippery slope to tyranny.

[Birdy]

You ignore the loss incurred by the fire fighters. Their time, risk and labour is not free and they could have been doing something else.

I don't ignore it, I know they have to be paid for this, but we are discussing about the way to do so.
Btw: Their time was already spent in that example.

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

What we are discussing is paying $75 per year for fire protection, which those who lost their home refused to do. Therefore, the fire fighters have not been paid in this case.

Yes, because this payment model is awful there was a big loss.

The alternative of the fire fighters being paid via taxation is just treating everyone else as slaves; forcing people to labour, in order to extract wealth from them, is slavery.

I disagree. While there are many bad things in states that can end up in a kind of slavery-state it's not the taxation itself.
If done right, it doesn't enslave anyone (my personal opinion).

[Birdy]

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

You want to lock people in cages for being 'an ass'?

There are some real shits on this planet, many of whom I would like nothing to do with. This doesn't mean I get to lock them in cages, just because I don't like them.

Oh yes, I want to.
At least the real big ones like mass murderers as a protection from let them continuing being that.

Can you define 'good things' objectively? Will everyone share the same opinion? If this was the case, you wouldn't need taxation at all - people would be willing to make the sacrifices without force.

As soon as you use force, to implement some subjective 'good', you are on a slippery slope to tyranny.

It's difficult but I try it by defining "suffering" and "loss of work" as bad things.

[myrkul]

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Would you rape a prostitute?

[Birdy]

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Would you rape a prostitute?

I wouldn't rape anyone.

[myrkul]

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Would you rape a prostitute?

I wouldn't rape anyone.

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

[Birdy]

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

The prostitute isn't watching something burn up in flames.
There is no reason to force anything here and the bad defintely outweigths the good in this case.

-> this argument is invalid.

[myrkul]

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

The prostitute isn't watching something burn up in flames.
There is no reason to force anything here and the bad defintely outweigths the good in this case.

-> this argument is invalid.

So, force is moral if the "good" outweighs the "bad"? Could you objectively define those concepts for me?

[Mike Christ]

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

The prostitute isn't watching something burn up in flames.
There is no reason to force anything here and the bad defintely outweigths the good in this case.

-> this argument is invalid.

Your points boils down to this: "People will help me, or I will make them help me."

If you don't see the problem with this, see here.

[Birdy]

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

The prostitute isn't watching something burn up in flames.
There is no reason to force anything here and the bad defintely outweigths the good in this case.

-> this argument is invalid.

So, force is moral if the "good" outweighs the "bad"? Could you objectively define those concepts for me?

It's difficult, but I try it by defining "suffering" and "loss of work" as bad things.

[myrkul]

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

The prostitute isn't watching something burn up in flames.
There is no reason to force anything here and the bad defintely outweigths the good in this case.

-> this argument is invalid.

So, force is moral if the "good" outweighs the "bad"? Could you objectively define those concepts for me?

It's difficult, but I try it by defining "suffering" and "loss of work" as bad things.

OK, that's "bad," we'll provisionally accept "suffering" in the place of "bad." What about "good"?

[Birdy]

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

The prostitute isn't watching something burn up in flames.
There is no reason to force anything here and the bad defintely outweigths the good in this case.

-> this argument is invalid.

Your points boils down to this: "People will help me, or I will make them help me."

If you don't see the problem with this, see here.

The other points boil down to this:
"I am free to be whatever jackass I want to be"
If you don't see the problem with this, see here.

Generalization, it's not helpful at all.