If you don't like it, then leave.

[Hawker]

But subsidies come from taxation. Are you saying taxation is a self sustaining perpetual need, where new people must be taxed because they were helped by taxation of previous people?

No I am saying that there are social needs, for example for defence and health care, and taxation is a valid way to finance them. A progressive taxation system is justified if you can argue that the high earners have benefited from state expenditure.  For example, if the source of wealth is an educated workforce, it makes sense that people relying on that workforce pay a little extra.

Fred says that this is stealing and that there should be no border defence or state education since both are financed by theft.  I'm saying that just because someone has lots of money, that doesn't mean you do them wrong by taxing it.  Without the taxation, they may well be broke as they can't be expected to educate a workforce themselves.

[1714028630]

1714028630

[Rassah]

Regarding education, those that n/ow pay more in taxes to support education will very likely pay for that education directly. Companiez already subsidize education of their employees, and technology companies are giving a lot of money to my university to support the local well educated labor pool. Without taxation their contributions will be higher, and likely more selective.

[Hawker]

Regarding education, those that n/ow pay more in taxes to support education will very likely pay for that education directly. Companiez already subsidize education of their employees, and technology companies are giving a lot of money to my university to support the local well educated labor pool. Without taxation their contributions will be higher, and likely more selective.

You end up with the freeloader problem.  If a company moves into your state and it is profiting from your labourforce, court system, police and roads, there is every reason to require it to pay to maintain these institutions.  Given that the company knows about these costs in advance of setting up, there is no injustice.

[BitMagic]

The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.

Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.

Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.

Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.

Alright, this discussion is staying civil, and I appreciate that, so I suppose I can set aside my frustration for a bit.

The problem with your "taxes are theft" argument is that you're having trouble with the "tyranny of the majority"-type thinking. You see a limit on choice imposed by the government through threat of violence, which I assume you understand is where taxation legitimacy comes from. And yes, it's absolutely true that this limit on choice exists. It's not smoke and mirrors, and redistribution happens in ways that are sometimes "unfair," in your use of the word.

However, your alternative, to let private organizations operate where once public organizations did, brings a very significant problem: free markets guarantee the opportunity of freedom only in perfectly competitive scenarios where goods can be well-priced, and the degree of competitiveness has an enormous dependency on things like access to wealth. In short, unequal distribution of wealth results in unequal access, and unequal access provides the mechanism for a minority to commit theft. It should be needless to say that the primary incentive of private business is the accumulation of wealth for this very purpose. This is the entire point of anti-trust: monopoly allows the tyranny of the minority to manipulate and steal from the majority through wealth (or resource) control.

It's sad, but you really get two choices: you can have a system that at least purports to operate based on a public, collective mandate, or you can have one that rewards consolidation of decision-making power in to very few hands.

Dollar voting costs.  Ballot voting is cheap.  This is the key difference.  Even Joe Sixpack is not a fool when it comes to spending his money.  He may not care to research the difference between cholera and hepatitis when he casts his vote on public health policy, but he will probably research the difference between a Sony and an LG when he buys a flat screen TV.

Dollar votes are likely to be more rational and less capricious than ballot votes.

Also, it's amazing how quickly people forget their "moral objections" when a substantial financial gain is involved.

No, Joe Sixpack certainly isn't a fool. He'd much rather spend that money on a Sony than cholera research, and I'll be damned if anyone tells me that that Sony does less good than curing cholera.  

I mean seriously, did you even read what you wrote? Your last sentence should tell you why "dollar voting" brings you to the lowest common denominator with difficult-to-price goods (like public health, that are literally necessary for our survival), where everyone buys a coke instead of supporting needle exchanges: replace the word "objections" with "concerns."

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

[BitMagic]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree, entirely. The important point is to ask yourself about property rights. Real, economic property rights. Not free market property rights. Not legally defined property rights. The kind of right that specifies ONLY (and I mean only, Atlas) a measurable ability to control a resource, under whatever circumstances.

Thus, in this conception, if you and a friend find a briefcase full of gold in the woods, who owns it? In this example, the one with the bigger machine gun. This is the kind of property right I'm discussing.

When you talk about these issues, the idea of "theft" becomes extremely interesting, and only relatable to modern law; was the appropriation of Native land in the US theft? Was it an efficient (i.e. less wasteful) use of the land by transferring property rights (THROUGH FORCE, ATLAS, NOT LAW) from those who couldn't defend it to those who could? Was it right?

You have to recognize that on some level, people are uncomfortable with this low-level idea of might makes right, because it's violent and power-consolidating, which reduces choice. You have to consider some kind of collective mechanism if you want to move beyond that, and if you do, there's no way to guarantee perfect distribution.

Under many circumstances, private organizations operate under might makes right, through the use of wealth to coerce government monopoly on violence. This is a huge problem, and exactly what successful, effective regulation is supposed to counteract.

Sad that it doesn't work, but without it entirely, it certainly won't work.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree, entirely. The important point is to ask yourself about property rights. Real, economic property rights. Not free market property rights. Not legally defined property rights. The kind of right that specifies ONLY (and I mean only, Atlas) a measurable ability to control a resource, under whatever circumstances.

Thus, in this conception, if you and a friend find a briefcase full of gold in the woods, who owns it? In this example, the one with the bigger machine gun. This is the kind of property right I'm discussing.

When you talk about these issues, the idea of "theft" becomes extremely interesting, and only relatable to modern law; was the appropriation of Native land in the US theft? Was it an efficient (i.e. less wasteful) use of the land by transferring property rights (THROUGH FORCE, ATLAS, NOT LAW) from those who couldn't defend it to those who could? Was it right?

You have to recognize that on some level, people are uncomfortable with this low-level idea of might makes right, because it's violent and power-consolidating, which reduces choice. You have to consider some kind of collective mechanism if you want to move beyond that, and if you do, there's no way to guarantee perfect distribution.

Heh, as a nihilist and an admirer of Ragnar Redbeard, I agree with you. So the most powerful whim wins. Gotcha. There is little to argue here. If we bring the argument to nihilism, there is little point. I guess the thread is over.

I mean, fuck, man. Are you just trolling? Wasn't it clear we were trying to justify our moral preferences from the beginning? Of course we know there is no objective meaning or value. We don't need a lesson in that.

[BitMagic]

I mean, fuck man. Are you just trolling?

What? "Since nothing matters, every argument is dead."

Why the hell are you even here? Just cut and paste that quote right there and never type anything else.

We may have gotten off track, but it was an interesting track, and substantive, with the exception of your contributions. Get the hell out of these forums, Atlas. You have nothing to add around here with your crap.

[ALPHA.]

I mean, fuck man. Are you just trolling?

What? "Since nothing matters, every argument is dead."

Why the hell are you even here? Just cut and paste that quote right there and never type anything else.

We may have gotten off track, but it was an interesting track, and substantive, with the exception of your contributions. Get the hell out of these forums, Atlas. You have nothing to add around here with your crap.

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110826/1000/awesome_classic_movie_gifs_02.gif

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

[Hawker]

...snip... Of course we know there is no objective meaning or value. We don't need a lesson in that.

Then why do you post?

[ALPHA.]

...snip... Of course we know there is no objective meaning or value. We don't need a lesson in that.

Then why do you post?

For the same reasons I don't commit suicide.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

[Hawker]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I am an organism and I claim Alaska.

Dibs.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I am an organism and I claim Alaska.

Dibs.

Tangible and enforceable claims.

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen. Stop stealing from me.

Hey, if you can be silly then so can I. Most of it is tangible and enforcable, well, since you're all stealing I suppose I should go out and "force" you to stop.

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen...Most of it is tangible and enforcable.

No, it isn't.

[JA37]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen...Most of it is tangible and enforcable.

No, it isn't.

Isn't tangible? Or isn't enforceable?
Well, it's certainly tangible. And enforceable? You're all stealing, and you won't stop. I should just get a BFG and go postal on all of you. Or do you propose that I'm not fully entitled to my claim?

[ALPHA.]

Theft is never justified.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen...Most of it is tangible and enforcable.

No, it isn't.

Isn't tangible? Or isn't enforceable?
Well, it's certainly tangible. And enforceable? You're all stealing, and you won't stop. I should just get a BFG and go postal on all of you. Or do you propose that I'm not fully entitled to my claim?

Both.