George ought to help.... (should we use violence on him if he chooses not to?)

[MemoryDealers]

Please take a look at the following youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs


I think this is one of the most powerful videos on taxation that I have ever seen.
If you like this video,  please support the creator by making a Bitcoin donation on his website:

http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/
His Bitcoin address is 1LqYpj6MNppH8yiKBWXDH2mkSLiMYwQMx6

If you don't like this video,  I would be curious to hear why.

[1715060401]

1715060401

[1715060401]

1715060401

[Eveofwar]

I liked the video

Here's one right back at you...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

[Hawker]

Half baked logic.  George's money was created by society, it was given to him by society and he only keeps it because society provides him security.  So the amount he has is not his decision, its a collective decision.

[MemoryDealers]

Half baked logic.  George's money was created by society, it was given to him by society and he only keeps it because society provides him security.  So the amount he has is not his decision, its a collective decision.

So you are saying that it is ok to use violence against George in order to take back what was given to him by society?

When you say "money"  do you mean wealth,  or government issued currency?

I'm not trying to start a flame war.
 To me it seems so clear that it is not OK to use violence against George,  so I am trying hard to understand how anyone else could see it so differently.

[Hawker]

Half baked logic.  George's money was created by society, it was given to him by society and he only keeps it because society provides him security.  So the amount he has is not his decision, its a collective decision.

So you are saying that it is ok to use violence against George in order to take back what was given to him by society?

When you say "money"  do you mean wealth,  or government issued currency?

I'm not trying to start a flame war.
 To me it seems so clear that it is not OK to use violence against George,  so I am trying hard to understand how anyone else could see it so differently.

What is money?  What is property?  Legal constructs that society has created.  If George has been blessed with an abundance of these under the present system of distribution, good for him.  But if the society decides to redistribute, that's fine too.  If George won't accept this without a spell in jail, well, that is why society makes jails in the first place.

[Kluge]

Half baked logic.  George's money was created by society, it was given to him by society and he only keeps it because society provides him security.  So the amount he has is not his decision, its a collective decision.

So you are saying that it is ok to use violence against George in order to take back what was given to him by society?

When you say "money"  do you mean wealth,  or government issued currency?

I'm not trying to start a flame war.
 To me it seems so clear that it is not OK to use violence against George,  so I am trying hard to understand how anyone else could see it so differently.

What is money?  What is property?  Legal constructs that society has created.  If George has been blessed with an abundance of these under the present system of distribution, good for him.  But if the society decides to redistribute, that's fine too.  If George won't accept this without a spell in jail, well, that is why society makes jails in the first place.

Is your argument just that people should accept whatever others do, because as members of a "society," they are dependent on the choices of others? If George won't accept jail, he can go down shooting, and that's fine, too? That's why man made guns in the first place.

@Hawk's reply (so as not to create another post): Seems reasonable. Was just wondering where you were coming from.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Is your argument just that people should accept whatever others do, because as members of a "society," they are dependent on the choices of others? If George won't accept jail, he can go down shooting, and that's fine, too? That's why man made guns in the first place.

Not at all.  Everyone has ideas and values and being in a minority of 1 is not that uncommon.  The best you can hope for is to persuade people that you are right.

As to George saying he won't accept jail, if its a cause worth dying for, then going down shooting is indeed the right thing to do.  Objecting to paying tax is generally not seen as a cause worth dying for.

[P4man]

Curious, why do they take helping poor oliver as example, and not say, paying for the military?
Do you think its okay for george to refuse paying for roads, for the police or the defense of his country, or even speeding tickets if he doesnt want to?

If george doesnt like paying for military, or speeding tickets, or helping people in need, in a democracy he has the ability to vote.
If he doesnt like the outcome of the vote, he can move elsewhere. You dont get to cherry pick laws to obey or things to pay for.

[bb113]

Curious, why do they take helping poor oliver as example, and not say, paying for the military?
Do you think its okay for george to refuse paying for roads, for the police or the defense of his country, or even speeding tickets if he doesnt want to?

If george doesnt like paying for military, or speeding tickets, or helping people in need, in a democracy he has the ability to vote.
If he doesnt like the outcome of the vote, he can move elsewhere. You dont get to cherry pick laws to obey or things to pay for.

So I think there is a pretty good real life analogy.

Oliver bought a projector, the bulb burned out. A new bulb is about $300, which is a rather large purchase. His roomate, George, used the projector all the time, and was responsible for a significant portion of the wear and tear, but claimed to not care if it got fixed or not. Oliver personally wants a functioning projector, and knows that george will be able use it if oliver pays to get it fixed. Should Oliver:

1) Try to peacefully convince him to pitch in
2) Just go ahead and buy the new bulb himself (knowing George will get a free ride)
3) Not purchase the bulb and just go without a projector, even though he could afford it and it is something he wants.
4) Violently force George to contribute to the fund since Oliver "knows" he will use the projector once it is fixed.
5) Strike some deal in which George agrees he no longer has use of the projector (and trust him not to cheat).
6) Lock up the projector when he is not around so that george cannot have any use of it.
7) Anything else?

[Kluge]

Curious, why do they take helping poor oliver as example, and not say, paying for the military?
Do you think its okay for george to refuse paying for roads, for the police or the defense of his country, or even speeding tickets if he doesnt want to?

If george doesnt like paying for military, or speeding tickets, or helping people in need, in a democracy he has the ability to vote.
If he doesnt like the outcome of the vote, he can move elsewhere. You dont get to cherry pick laws to obey or things to pay for.

So I think there is a pretty good real life analogy.

Oliver bought a projector, the bulb burned out. A new bulb is about $300, which is a rather large purchase. His roomate, George, used the projector all the time, and was responsible for a significant portion of the wear and tear, but claimed to not care if it got fixed or not. Oliver personally wants a functioning projector, and knows that george will be able use it if oliver pays to get it fixed. Should Oliver:

1) Try to peacefully convince him to pitch in
2) Just go ahead and buy the new bulb himself (knowing George will get a free ride)
3) Not purchase the bulb and just go without a projector, even though he could afford it and it is something he wants.
4) Violently force George to contribute to the fund since Oliver "knows" he will use the projector once it is fixed.
5) Strike some deal in which George agrees he no longer has use of the projector (and trust him not to cheat).
6) Lock up the projector when he is not around so that george cannot have any use of it.
7) Anything else?

I'll go with 5 + aggression if agreement broken.

[Hawker]

Curious, why do they take helping poor oliver as example, and not say, paying for the military?
Do you think its okay for george to refuse paying for roads, for the police or the defense of his country, or even speeding tickets if he doesnt want to?

If george doesnt like paying for military, or speeding tickets, or helping people in need, in a democracy he has the ability to vote.
If he doesnt like the outcome of the vote, he can move elsewhere. You dont get to cherry pick laws to obey or things to pay for.

So I think there is a pretty good real life analogy.

Oliver bought a projector, the bulb burned out. A new bulb is about $300, which is a rather large purchase. His roomate, George, used the projector all the time, and was responsible for a significant portion of the wear and tear, but claimed to not care if it got fixed or not. Oliver personally wants a functioning projector, and knows that george will be able use it if oliver pays to get it fixed. Should Oliver:

1) Try to peacefully convince him to pitch in
2) Just go ahead and buy the new bulb himself (knowing George will get a free ride)
3) Not purchase the bulb and just go without a projector, even though he could afford it and it is something he wants.
4) Violently force George to contribute to the fund since Oliver "knows" he will use the projector once it is fixed.
5) Strike some deal in which George agrees he no longer has use of the projector (and trust him not to cheat).
6) Lock up the projector when he is not around so that george cannot have any use of it.
7) Anything else?

Its not a good real life analogy.  In real life, people are elected to make decisions that affect the whole society.  What Oliver and George do as individuals is irrelevant to deciding what kind of society you want to live in and what level of taxation is needed to support that society.

[bb113]

In real life, people are elected to make decisions that affect the whole society.  What Oliver and George do as individuals is irrelevant to deciding what kind of society you want to live in and what level of taxation is needed to support that society.

Is it wrong to expect the actions of politicians (or anyone who represents a collection of people), to comply with moral and cultural norms? Regardless of whether it is "wrong" or not, do people vote based on this expectation?

[Hawker]

In real life, people are elected to make decisions that affect the whole society.  What Oliver and George do as individuals is irrelevant to deciding what kind of society you want to live in and what level of taxation is needed to support that society.

Is it wrong to expect the actions of politicians (or anyone who represents a collection of people), to comply with moral and cultural norms? Regardless of whether it is "wrong" or not, do people vote based this expectation?

Of course it isn't wrong.  Ask Bill Clinton what happens when you caught deviating from a moral or cultural norm.

Sort of off topic there aren't you?

[bb113]

What Oliver and George do as individuals is irrelevant to deciding what kind of society you want to live in and what level of taxation is needed to support that society.

I am trying to establish why I disagree with this statement.

[bb113]

I think at the very least it is relevant to the topic.

[Hawker]

What Oliver and George do as individuals is irrelevant to deciding what kind of society you want to live in and what level of taxation is needed to support that society.

I am trying to establish why I disagree with this statement.

I think at the very least it is relevant to the topic.

How?  If your society has decided that roads are a good idea and that taxes are the way to pay for them, whether or not you share a projector with your neighbour is irrelevant.  Most people would class that as a transaction that happens between George and Oliver.  Paying taxes or building roads is not transaction based and logic based on transactions doesn't apply.

[dayfall]

It is a very well done video.  It doesn't ask if our taxation is violence; that is assumed.  It asks if violence is moral.  The seems to be the tougher question.

[bb113]

What Oliver and George do as individuals is irrelevant to deciding what kind of society you want to live in and what level of taxation is needed to support that society.

I am trying to establish why I disagree with this statement.

I think at the very least it is relevant to the topic.

How?  If your society has decided that roads are a good idea and that taxes are the way to pay for them, whether or not you share a projector with your neighbour is irrelevant.  Most people would class that as a transaction that happens between George and Oliver.  Paying taxes or building roads is not transaction based and logic based on transactions doesn't apply.

Because the actors who implement the will of a society should be (and are commonly) expected to act in line with the values that determine the socially acceptable way for George-Oliver interactions to go down.

I guess what I am saying is that interpersonal interactions are most fundamental. Person-society, society-person, society-society interactions are an abstraction of person-person. Yes there are some emergent properties of societies that shouldn't be ignored, and feedback between the different levels... My point is it would by folly to call the social norms that regulate interpersonal interactions irrelevant to determining how societies should behave.

To quote myself for emphasis:

...it would by folly to call the social norms that regulate interpersonal interactions irrelevant to determining how societies should behave.

I believe this is the main point on which you differ from the creator of the video and myself.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I guess what I am saying is that interpersonal interactions are most fundamental. Person-society, society-person, society-society interactions are an abstraction of person-person.

...snip...

That's not true.  There is no person-person equivalent of taxing a granny who lives in the mountains to pay for the coast guard.  Person-person generally is voluntary and transaction based.  States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.  You don't choose to be French and you don't choose to have restrictions on what price you are allowed sell bread for yet every Frenchman does both.

[bb113]

...snip...

I guess what I am saying is that interpersonal interactions are most fundamental. Person-society, society-person, society-society interactions are an abstraction of person-person.

...snip...

There is no person-person equivalent of taxing a granny who lives in the mountains to pay for the coast guard.  Person-person generally is voluntary and transaction based.

Here is where I think you are going off track. Generally, you could say person-person interaction is voluntary, sure. There are also times when one person forces the other to do something. Like if the coast guard sent a guy with a gun to the granny in the mountain and told her to pay up or else.

States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

I agree, this is why the activities of the state are not modeled very well by voluntary transactions between two people.