Even the conservatives have turned on Bush

[Astronuc]

or three lefts make a right.

 

[Smurf]

You agree with the basic premise of communism. You support using force to violate the rights of men by taking away their property.

I would be interested to know which criteria of communism you do not meet.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[sid_galt]

Taxation is certainly not looting - however, taxation without representation is more or less so.

I'm not getting you here.

Taxation involves telling a man to give money to the government and threatening him with physical force if he does not.

Looting involves telling a man to give money to another person and threatening him with physical force if he does not.
The essentials are the same.

I have no problem if someone voluntarily contributes to the society or the government. But he should not be forced to do so.

Paying taxes is part of a moral obligation to support the community - part of a social contract.

You mean if a person wants to deal with civilised people, he has a moral obligation to contribute to a common fund which is spent away on causes he may or may not approve of?

If two civilised persons or a group of persons want to participate in mutual trade or want to live near other civilised persons, how does that impose a moral obligation on them to contribute to the common fund?

The community in turn provides support and services that an individual might not otherwise be able to provide for him- or herself, or one's family.

That is only true for a person who is not productive enough. In which case he is living off people who are more productive than him without their consent.

Humans (and primates) are territorial, so it is difficult for an individual to go anywhere in the world and live outside a community and its government.

True. But how does that impose on him a moral obligation to give money to the common fund?

I am not advocating that he live alone and apart from everyone. If other people don't want to talk to him, that's their choice. If the person wants to contribute money to the community for charity work or the like or help other people that's his choice.

But what I'm advocating is that he should not be forced to give his money to anyone no matter where he lives. His life and property do not belong to the govt. or the community.

Ideally, we make the best government possible, which should provide for fair and impartial laws, and we obey the laws, which should in theory provide for domestic Tranquility and the general Welfare.

Sadly, given the current state of the world, with the govt. getting even bigger and bigger, that is not very likely.

 

[sid_galt]

I won't have the time to invest in a lengthy discussion of this sort.

k

And now, to turn the tables: I take it from your response, that you don't believe in taxation at all - even taxation with representation - and therefore don't believe in any social services whatsoever that are federally funded; road upkeep; public schooling; the military. School loans. I take it you believe that only those that can afford education or health care should have it.

No. I do believe the government should enforce the law, mantain courts, mantain a police force and mantain the military. I do believe the govt. has to make roads to support the military and the police. I am somewhat Jeffersonian on the purpose of the government.

I do not believe that the government should itself violate the code of ethics by appropriating the wealth and property of private citizens.

As to the practicality of my view, if people know that without contributing, they risk running into an anarchy, they will contribute more than you can think. If they can contribute 600 million dollars for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, they'll contribute much more for their personal security.

Most of the revenue these days is wasted anyway in welfare, spewing out money to other countries and to the UN, funding useless projects and putting unnecessary restrictions on the market so that the Chinese companies can beat the crap out of US companies and give us a trillion dollar deficit.

 

[loseyourname]

No. I do believe the government should enforce the law, mantain courts, mantain a police force and mantain the military. I do believe the govt. has to make roads to support the military and the police. I am somewhat Jeffersonian on the purpose of the government.

Personally, I think that the military should at least partially be funded by selling military technology to be adapted to civilian use. Roads can largely be built and maintained through user fees and public authorities, at least the major highways and bridges. It seems like the government has to enact some amount of taxation, at least on services it renders (like stamps, for instance) and sales taxes. It's the income tax and property tax that gets me. Many of my ancestors lived in this country for thousands of years before there ever was a United States. What right does the government have to claim the land for itself and tell us we now have to pay to live on it? My great-great grandfather built his house out in California City before California was even part of the United States. What is the theory here? That by remaining on his own property, in the house that he built, on the land that he worked, he consented to being governed by and giving over his land to the US? Did his children and grandchildren consent to the ridiculous property tax hikes that California went through before Prop 13? I don't see how this is substantially different from the King coming in and claiming divinely ordained lordship over you, exacting tribute and promising to protect you from other kings in return.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is the other quote from Brooks. The transcripts weren't available until now.

Mr. David Brooks: No. Listen, George Bush, his administration, has spent more on domestic discretionary spending, non-defense spending, twice as much as Bill Clinton, more than Lyndon Johnson. It is not what Republicans expected. I put most of the blame on Congress. But I wouldn't say--I mean, I think it's a mistake to say it's all about Bush...

... And as I say that, you always got to go back to competence. And sometimes in my dark moments, I think he's "The Manchurian Candidate" designed to discredit all the ideas I believe in. [continued]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9438988/

So, according to the conservative David Brooks, we can pretty much blame all republicans in Congress and Bush [whose competence he now questions].

Edit: Also, that's not a bad description of how Bush Sr made a Democrat out of me. They are both utterly transparent to me. I've seen better cons by used-car salesmen.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not getting you here.

Taxation involves telling a man to give money to the government and threatening him with physical force if he does not.

Looting involves telling a man to give money to another person and threatening him with physical force if he does not.
The essentials are the same.

Not really. The government is merely demanding payment for the services and protection it provides you. The looter didn't do anything to earn your money, the government did.

 

[Gokul43201]

I *do* agree with the maxim: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

How do you see justice in rewarding the needy at the expense of the able ?

 

[sid_galt]

The government is merely demanding payment for the services and protection it provides you. The looter didn't do anything to earn your money, the government did.

But the point is what if a person doesn't want those services?

The fact that the govt. provides a few services after taking quite a bit of your money doesn't change the fact that the govt. is threatening you with jail if you don't give it money. Not to mention that most of the money is flittered away on non-essential things which don't even remotely benefit you.

Let's say a person is a little ill. He doesn't want to take medical treatment at that point because he can't afford it. A hospital takes his money by force and then treats him. Would you say that the hospital acted ethically?

If a person walks 10 miles to work and a car company takes away his money without his consent and then gives him a car, would you say that the company acted ethically?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not saying the saying the amount "charged" to each citizen is necessarily fair. And a fair system may never be practically implemented. There's just too many problems with scrapping income taxes, especially right now, when the govt is neck-deep in debt.

 

[pattylou]

How do you see justice in rewarding the needy at the expense of the able ?

I don't see it as a matter of justice. I see it as a matter of reaching our individual and social potential for good and/or growth.

If people are abusing the welfare system for example, then they aren't giving according to their abilities. That's a problem. That's a problem for the system - but it's also a problem for the individual because they are "wasting" their life.

In an ideal system individuals reach their own potential by striving to do their best. This benefits them directly and it benefits the society as well.

Realistically we have to understand that some people can't contribute, and there must be a safety net. THis is where "To each according to his needs" comes in. This is good for society too - it builds community when it is not abused, and it is good for the individual for obvious reasons.

In other words, I think both parts of the maxim serve individuals and society well.

~~~

Also: A quick ramble:

Part of the Western mindset is "me me me." "My comfort, I deserve whatever I can afford etc. If I want to eat McDonalds and gain forty pounds that's OK."

You can argue that allowing or promoting this idea lies in line with Justice (protection of individual rights to do whatever one wants as long as it's legal.) But taken to its extreme, this is a very unhealthy attitude, and we have seen some of this extreme in our society with consumption that outstrips production (at the expense of the rest of the world), increasing personal health problems (at an increasing cost to society), etc. So "Justice" is not necessarily the only thing to keep in mind when envisioning society, and perhaps the western mindset could promote better health across the board if it were slightly less "me" focused.

Actually, with that ramble, I realize that I could argue that it is not "Just" for you to eat whatever you want, become morbidly obese, and therefore require more of my tax dollars to keep you healthy. In that sense, the maxim does apply to Justice.

 

[Astronuc]

Sid - I am planning to respond, but I don't have the time at the moment. Of course, I am referring to an ideal situation, and life (or reality) is often far from ideal.

Anway - looting - refers to pillaging - which is to rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder.

The government does not plunder - although it might seem that way at times - particularly to those who do not wish to pay taxes.

However, if one lives in a community, one uses services both directly and indirectly - e.g. roads (directly) and perhap 'border control' (indirectly) or 'jail' (hopefully indirectly) - or perhaps weather monitoring systems (directly and indirectly).

Anyway, one may pay a small amount of one's earnings or capital, but collectively a large amount is paid to the government in taxes, with which the government buys material and pays salaries/wages for people to provide services. One may not wish to use 'all' services of the government, but at least one has the choice. Likely, someone is using some service that the government provides.

I'll catch up later.

 

[sid_galt]

There's just too many problems with scrapping income taxes, especially right now, when the govt is neck-deep in debt.

I am not advocating scrapping the income tax right now. That would result in a chaos. However I do favor it and others being ultimately being scrapped out.

 

[sid_galt]

Sid - I am planning to respond, but I don't have the time at the moment.

k

Anway - looting - refers to pillaging - which is to rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder.

The government does not plunder - although it might seem that way at times - particularly to those who do not wish to pay taxes.

My dictionary (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) also defines it as the illicit gain of money by a public servant.

However regardless of the semantics, the government is violating the rights of people who do not wish to pay the government, do not use many of the services it gives (e.g. welfare) and yet are forced to pay.

However, if one lives in a community, one uses services both directly and indirectly - e.g. roads (directly) and perhap 'border control' (indirectly) or 'jail' (hopefully indirectly) - or perhaps weather monitoring systems (directly and indirectly).

You are talking about the free rider problem, aren't you?

Consider this case. If a large group of people organize a fund drive to plant trees in the city, there will certainly be many who won't pay but will benefit from the planted trees.
Regardless this does not give the group of people to coerce the money out of the non-payers for something they do not want to pay.

Defense services, border control, etc. will benefit everybody regardless of whether they pay or not. But the problem with coercing the money is, there will be many people who do not use or want to use any of the services but still will have to pay the tax.

On the other hand, if taxation is voluntary, there will be free riders but atleast the honest won't have to suffer. And I think there are enough sane people left who will contribute for their security and for the protection of their rights.

 

[sid_galt]

So "Justice" is not necessarily the only thing to keep in mind when envisioning society.

pattylou,
There are only two options - a just society or an unjust society. There is no middle ground.

If you advocate an unjust society, then what you are arguing for is not benevolence and humanity, what you are arguing for is death and destruction.