Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by DeathHamster, Oct 13, 2011.
Begging the question...
And please tell me you see the serious fallacy in your argument. Please.
I'll give you a hint...it's been mentioned many times in my posts.
Can you explain how a society based on theft can operate morally?
The roads example came up from others. It is one of the usual arguments against a stateless society. It is also a false dichotomy.
Do I have to explain the unintended consequences of using tax money to build the interstate highway system? Can you imagine what a transportation system would look like in a free market? I do know it wouldn't have built roads for the military, which is what the interstate system is. The fact that cars can run on it is incidental to its purpose. Think of the incentives that created for using oil and cars rather than developing other types of transport.
Could you have seen the direction the world took after slavery was banned in the 19th century, the century of capitalism, I might add. That's right, slavery disappeared on capitalism's watch. The 19th century was also the greatest increase in human wealth the world has ever seen, until government squandered the cornucopia with wars and inflation in the 20th century. Can you imagine the world today if governments hadn't murdered 150M of its own people, spent money on bombs, which then blew up, destroying more items of value.Can you imagine a word where the Federal Reserve hadn't stolen 98% of the value of the money?
And there is no sense arguing details. I do not know what the 22nd century will look like, any more than a 19th century person could see what the 20th century would be. All I know is that freedom is the value people want and the value that is most under assault by our governments. The gun in the room is so obvious and so ignored it shows what a strange creature man can be.
The false dichotomy of security versus freedom shows that the rhetoric is way out of whack with reality.
And itchy, your posts have ignored what would have happened without government interference. Opportunity costs, IOW. If you've failed to account for the opportunity costs, then you have to go back to the drawing board. They result in serious unintended consequences.
Ermm….what? You seem to do this a lot adhrocat. Someone points a clear hole in your argumentation, in this case your ignoring that the private entities rely on governance for their existence, and you respond with a one-liner that neither address the point made nor even makes any sense within the topic context.
Do I really have to explain what begging the question actually means to you? And then painfully and slowly describe the myriad of different reasons why private roads required the existence of governance (ffs the USA was only discovered because of the monarchy, another example of how governance led to your scenario)?
And the real irony here? Your unquestioning assumption that taxes are theft, despite ignoring argumentation demonstrating the falsity of this and your complete refusal to try substantiating your claim, is a textbook example of what begging the question signifies. Hell, even if your premise were granted it would still give you fuck all support for your claims regarding Keynesian and Austrian economics.
To take a simplistic unfounded and historically falsified mantra like ‘taxes are immoral’ and to use it as a wholesale method of ignoring swathes of argumentation is, frankly, more than a little silly. It is starting to border on outright whckjobbery. Maybe you can ignore the topic again, like you have been doing anyway, by BAWWWWing about being insulted?
No one poked a hole in my logic. They simply sidestepped it.
Private entities don't need the government to do business. That is the false dichotomy you are offering. You are asserting it as proved, when it is the point in contention.
As for taxes are theft, the argument has been offered many times. I will assume for now that you rely on the social contract theory to convince yourself that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, as the man said.
But the social contract theory is full of holes. For instance, a contract is a voluntary agreement (but not the social contract), a contract is enforced through a third party mechanism, but not the social contract, which is enforced by one of the parties to the alleged contract. Really, enforced by one of the parties? And that makes sense to you? A contract where one party is not only a signatory but the only recourse? And you accept this? Are you that naive?
Taxes are theft. Why? Because they are not voluntary. Why not? Because the social contract is enforced by one the alleged signatories to the contract. That is grounds to throw a contract out of court.
Imagine. You sign a contract with AT&T and then AT&T says "We're the ones who will make sure the contract is enforced."
Yikes. Who is that naive?
What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue. ~Thomas Paine
People who complain about taxes can be divided into two classes: men and women. ~Author Unknown
Any tax is a discouragement and therefore a regulation so far as it goes. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
A fine is a tax for doing something wrong. A tax is a fine for doing something right. Author Unknown
Useful idiots? (*cough*Republicans*cough*)
People who understand economics.
People don't think envy pays the bills.
People who understand you can't spend more than you earn.
People who know that the rich already pay a good share of the cost of government
People who think the government's spending is the problem, not their lack of revenue.
People who...oh never mind.
Certainly "good" and "fair" are relative terms.
Amway and Fox News brainwashed me on all that bullshit once. Never again.
With all due respect:
thanks for this
With all due respect:
Any corporate tax is a tax on consumption. .
the problem isn't the taxing, it's the spending. Our government has no constraints on sending, They act like a drunken sailor with a 24 hour pass. Yes, the corporations are getting away with things, which is exactly what the politicians want. This is where the politicians get their income.
So if you stop the politicians from being sociopaths, the problem is solved. Oh, wait...
Here's how I see the current system. I steal your money and give it to Billy. You then come to me to say that Billy has stolen your money and you want it back.
Yea, that makes perfect sense.
Well adhocrat, luv ya bud, but your analogy only makes sense if I *have* to go to you with my concern because you're my legally elected representative and also if you and Billy are the only ones who get to be in on the private meetings about who is doing what to whom. Oh and if Billy is financing your re-election.
You send me your tax dollars.
I use your tax dollars to bail out my buddy Billy Bankster.
You then notice that the money I said was going to protect you from harm has gone to my buddy Billy Bankster.
You then come to me to complain that Billy Bankster has stolen the money.
That is the scenario, and the politician is laughing so hard he can barely speak. He knows he has fooled another generation of naive people who come to sociopaths hoping for surcease only to get promises. He knows he's got the best job in the world. He lies and people give him money, name bridges and buildings after him, and all he does is what would be considered criminal if he tried it in any other context.
So to recap, the politicians steal your money so you get mad at the bankers.
Can we say 'wrong target?'
You feel corps and the ultra wealthy are paying their fair share, and others disagree.
Would there be any amount that they didn't pay, or got refunded, which would make you feel they weren't paying their fair share?
(And btw when I say "With all due respect", it is not sarcastic.)
Actually, I am saying that the politicians are the ones driving the problems here, not the companies.
If I pay for a service, say, police protection, I expect my money to go to pay the police for the protection, not to be repurposed to bail out someone's buddies, which is what happened here.
I paid my taxes with the expectation that the money would be used for the purpose intended. Not to do so would be a violation of contract in most settings and yet in this instance the only remedy is to go to the person who committed the crime and ask him to please stop. Somehow, I don't think that will work.
It isn't a matter of the companies paying their fair share, it's being able to know that the politicians won't repurpose our money to their own needs.
In San Jose we have the interesting problem of paying taxes then being told not to expect help. The San Jose police will no longer respond to certain 9-11 calls, and if you were robbed of less than $20K the police won't even investigate.
Yet the only people I can complain to about this are the ones who created the problem in the first place.
That makes sense, if you are the politician. It is subverting reality, which is a politicians 'valuable final product.'
I would beg to differ.
Politicians, as we know them, wouldn't exist in the main without the big companies funding them, and so manipulating the system.
They also manipulate the system from below at the grassroots level: the employed and the underemployed.
Ergo, perfectly on target to go after the corporate and the financial. The people are on the money, pun intended.
Rock on, #OWS.
So we agree that certain entities are not paying their fair share?
(BTW, I did not identify who/what I thought was the cause.)
What does "it" refer to?
And why doesn't it matter whether everyone pays their fair share?
Taxes are theft, SubG. SO you are asking me if we are being robbed equally. Nope, some people are robbed a lot more than others. And the ones who are being robbed the worst are those not even born yet. SO much for the vote. Our politicians are stealing from our children and grandchildren and giving it to us. Doesn't that make you feel just a little bit icky? I know I am scared for the future, when the current sociopaths are using it to buy votes to stay in office to perpetuate the continued theft.
And even if taxes are not theft, then our politicians are spending more than they take in. That doesn't work in my household, it doesn't work in your household, why do we think it can work for anyone's household? Just because it's the government doesn't mean that reality can be subverted. The butcher's bill always comes due.
Hey does fractional banking work? Because the butchers bill is way past due and it's coming home to roost.
Also false dichotomy.
All I said was that some aren't paying their fair share. You took issue.
It turns out we agree.
Why does America have working poor than ?
Was that a question about banking? I agree the bill is overdue, but productivity gains help push the reckoning further on down the road.
And please explain the false dichotomy. Did I commit a logical fallacy? If so, please point it out.
But please define 'fair share.'
Let me ask you a question. From the 19th century until 1965 or so the poverty rate in the US was declining at a steady pace of about 1% a year. Then the US declared a War on Poverty and the poverty rate started rising again. Do you suppose there is a correlation between these facts?
We have working poor because it is useful to government employees to have poor that they can point to as justification for their jobs, But the real beneficiary from welfare are the bureaucrats, not the poor.
you did above....see your own post "equally. nope"
i also said the term was relatve.
I couldn't see how anyone could disagree with it, but you did. And then it turned out you didn't. And now you want me to define it.
I think you just want to argue. How would you define it?
Trick question, because we all have our own opinion on it.
All the folks in the street right now have their own feeling, and that is that things just aren't fair.
Moved this debate to a different thread, sub. We're trying to keep the updates thread for, well, updates. ty
SubG, I never meant to say people are paying their fair share. People are being robbed, so 'fair' plays no part in the debate. I stated that since taxes are theft, there is no morals, therefore, 'fair' plays no part in the transaction.
And then I said even if taxes are not theft, then using money intended for one purpose cannot then be used for other purposes. We are complaining about the COS fundraising, yet when the USG does the same thing, people proclaim it good. But if it is bad for one, it is bad for all, otherwise we don't count it as 'fair.'
The banksters could have made the choice to not take the money. They didn't. Ergo, they're equally in the wrong.
I agree with a caveat:
If ALL the bankers had said NO, maybe, but the incentives here are so screwy that couldn't happen. Instead, if a banker had backbone and morals and had said "No", he would have been removed from his job, a more compliant person put in his place, and business would go on as usual.
We have come to think of businessman as one more category of evil, like gang banger or weapons dealer. But that is too weird. A businessman, without government assistence, can only appeal to customers, not compel. He has to offer value to get your money. He has to offer something you want, can afford, at a time, price and place you agree to in order to earn your money.
A government is bound by no constraints. Here in SJ, the police will no longer respond to certain 9-11 calls nor investigate property crimes under $20K. I pay my taxes, but do not get the service. Yet my remedy is to appeal to the agency in violation of the contract.
So much for the social contract.
We are asking politicians to be more than human, a notion we laugh at with regard to Homo novis, but accept tacitly when it comes to politics.
We are worried about powerful people hurting us, so we hand over control to even more powerful people. If power corrupts, then surely government breeds corruption.
Oh, and the politicians took an oath of office, the businessmen did not. That changes the responsibility level. Certainly the businessmen were out of line, but audacity, always audacity. Asking for a favor (or offering a bribe, however you wish to express it) doesn't have negative consequences unless the politician has morals. but it has superior positive consequences if it happens.
And the odds of a politician having morals are pretty slim. And the more power they have the less likely morals are to play a part in his thinking. Opinion polls, not principles, dictate policy.
So move to somewhere with no taxes.
There are such places.
I hear Somalia is lovely.
Actually the tax rate in Somalia is quite high and very abrupt and direct. It comes straight out of the barrel of a gun with no intervening buffer.
IOW, Somalia has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But you knew that, didn't you? can we say 'straw man?'
No - that's not the government doing it. So not taxation.
Boring, repetitious accusation is boring. Any argument you don't agree with is, according to you, a straw man.
My point is that by living in a country you get certain things (such as security, roads, whatever) and you take on certain responsibilities (such as paying taxes) in return. You don't like it, you can opt out, and go live somewhere else.
There's nothing straw-mannish about that argument. Getting bored of your moaning.
Take a look at how Somalia got to where it is. The history is important to understand the current events. Then tell me again this is a society. Sorry, chaos is a terrible thing in Somalia, but to point to Somalia as an example is to miss the point with more straw men. A better example of anarchy would be the US from about 1800 to 1913. IOW, the greatest explosion of wealth and freedom ever seen, that's what I'm talking about. Why you keep bringing your straw men up to fight is a puzzlement.
And yes, I am aware that there was a government in the US during that time But the federal government had very little effect on the common man during that time period. The people were free to live their lives with almost no interference from government regulation. The government considered the people to be adults, and treated them as such. Now our government considers us children and treats us accordingly.
I truly am sorry you are so ignorant of economics. Really, it is sad that you have such distorted and prefabricated opinions about the subject. But when you point to Somalia as an example of an anarchic society all it shows is your ignorance.
Consider me driven away.
Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
View attachment work.6138973.1.flat,550x550,075,f.tweedledum-and-t
Adhocrat, you make some great statements, but something is sticking out that I need to address:
You have said multiple times that taxes are "Immoral" and that this idea of yours is, from what I gather, moral. The issue I have is that morals are not a scientific constant. They are user defined. Morality is mostly a psychological and sociological issue and really isn't a constant between the human race. For example: My church and the Westboro Baptist Church both have a moral belief that homosexuality is wrong. However, both don't act identically based on their morals. My church doesn't protest and act like a bunch of moonbat trolls that sue and troll like crazy. The Westboro "church" does...
...Of course that gets all negated because my morals say: "Stay the fuck out of other people's lives. I don't care if they pound poop holes or pussy holes. I got enough problems as is to worry about what other people do."
Now as far as taxes go: There will always be an argument as to whether or not it is "fair" or if it is needed. Even if your system was implemented, to many this "pay for what you use" would be no better than taxes because the "use" is the only game in town. However this system would eliminate safeguards in place from preventing some dubious person from charging exponential amounts because they are the only provider. Somebody could come along and compete, but without resources like a tax or even a donation it may not materialize. All the while this person would profit while this competitor built this alternate method.
Of course, what would stop the person from making it difficult for a competitor to get their foot in the door? Take for example: Cable and Phone. In my area they are owned by one company. If I were to try to make a competition, I would have to lay down new wires and a new cable/phone infrastructure because that company wouldn't let me use theirs. They certainly the hell wouldn't under this system of yours either. The problem here is that your system doesn't address established monopolies that have a foot hold in a lot of areas.
That there is the essence of libertarian and anarchic political thought. If you followed that through to the logical conclusions you would be a libertarian.
Let's take morals. My contention is that there are certain universally preferred behaviors. For instance, it wouldn't be hard to get agreement that murder, rape and theft is wrong and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that this is not time dependent. That is, it is wrong now, it was wrong 1000 years ago and it will be wrong 1000 years from now.
It also is reasonably intuitive that the rules should apply equally to all. If it is wrong for me to steal, it is wrong for you to steal.
Taxes, as near as I can tell are justified in the social contract theory as something we pay for as a fee for services rendered. But now, in San Jose, my fees are not being used in the proscribed manner, meaning I have no recourse if someone were to steal $10K from me. In a private setting I would have legal recourse for violation of contract. But with the social contract, the 'signatory' is also the guarantor, which is a clear conflict of interest.
There is no choice in paying taxes. I pay mine even though I hate that some of my money is being used to murder people, and other money is used to tell lies to the citizens. But since I have no choice in paying (or limited choice. I don't think I'd like jails) then the morality changes. No choice means no morality.
So even if taxes were moral, I would have to have the option of how the money was used. Since I have no option to murdering foreigners, the tax is immoral. I would not hurt anyone willingly. SO to force me to pay for murder is immoral.
To people who say they willingly pay their taxes without the threat of violence, I say BS. Talk is cheap, and so are people. Few people would be willing to part with half their income without accountability.
WBC certainly has the right to act as they do, and it makes it really easy for us to make our own decisions about how to treat them. WBC is out front about their beliefs. So while they are acting morally in their minds, their morals are not universally preferred. Last I heard they had less than 70 members. So pretty obviously what they are doing does not resonate with the vast majority of people.
If a group declares another group bad for reasons beyond their control, is that really a good thing? You say your church says homosexuality is bad but that you express that moral choice in a different manner. Yet if gays are born not made then the moral issues change, and your church's position becomes akin to racism. “They are bad because of their skin color sexuality.” If sexual choices are inborn, then any prejudice against gays is ascientific.
Morals are only possible when we have choices. So I say there are choices that most people prefer. Namely, don't initiate the use of force. It is immoral to initiate the use of force.
If that is true, and if it is true that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then taxes that are not fees for service, but general revenue, are immoral. My money is being used to murder people in foreign countries. That makes me immoral, it makes you immoral, it males our government immoral. My only 'choice' according to the social contractarians is to move to another geographical region. But this is a false choice. That is the choice others are trying to limit me to. It doesn't make it true to have it stated.Also called a false dichotomy.
As for cable versus phone, you might want to pick an area that hasn't been destroyed already by government regulations. Did you know that cable TV was a crime in 1973?
Also, what people do is solve problems. That is the one good reason for entrepreneurs. So if there was only one provider and the cost of laying cables were too great, then they'd offer wireless or satellite or develop a new technology. In the absence of government intervention, entrepreneurs solve problems. I point to 2000 years of history as proof.
I don't have to explain how to make the change from this system to the next. All I have to do is show that the current system is immoral, inefficient and destructive. That will allow for people to come up with better solutions.
Did people know what society would look like without serfs or slaves? Who would do the work? Why would they? It would be anarchy and chaos. THink of the children. All those are just means to stop discussion, they are not real issues. The answer is "Let's find out how the market would solve the problem. That is the most democratic way."
It'd be like WWP only everywhere. People coming together to solve problems in a chaotic, dare I say it, anarchic way.
And i know there are TOS, which is a private contract, which is how a free market works, on private contracts.
And I have said many times that trying to explain 45 years of research into a WWP post is not easy. So thanks Paro for asking questions rather than using thought stopping techniques (such as Somalia, lol. God, do people ever actually think about what they say and how stupid it is? Somalia is a thought stopping technique as practiced in political debate. You'd think that people schooled in the evils of scientology thought stopping would at least recognize the technique rather than try to use it against unsuspecting and innocent sophisticated and alert people.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!