Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

Quag · June 19, 2011

Come on UTF defend your premise!

*repost* 6th time UTF are you afraid of the implications of replying to me?

ok lets try this, please answer these questions:

1. Are municipalities responsible for water/sanitation and the majority of roads as well as other services?

2. Do the citizens of these municipalities recieve the benefits of these services?

3. By their nature is it impossible to avoid these benefits if you live in the municipality?

4. Do Municipalities raise most of their income through property taxes?

5. Does much of the North America exist outside of municipal boundaries?

6. Are these areas thus exempt from property taxes?

7. Are you free to choose where in North America you live?

Now for you to disagree with me you must say NO to one of these questions, please inform me which one it is and why, Then I can begin to try and understand where you are coming from.

Quote

No (at least I don’t think so), quag thinks that the government taxing me isn't coercive because I choose to trade a certain amount of goods with other people within the United States. I could make the same argument by saying that me taking your computer from you (to my house with force if necessary to get it there) isn't actually coercive either because you chose to produce/trade for a computer. If you, like quag, still can't see that you stealing my property forcefully is coercive regardless of the fact that I chose to produce my property (my money, my computer, etc),

Where in any of my posts have I said it was ok to steal? You keep saying taxation is theft. Please read the 5th repost of mine and tell me where I am wrong. Please dont come up with another silly water/computer/slave analogy that has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. You made a claim that I and many others consider absurd ie taxation = theft/violence/slavery. now I have tried to point out where your logic falls apart and instead of answering me you just come up with one false analogy after another. My analogy of the bar with the 2 drink minimum you dismissed without refuting, my pointing out that you can move was replied with the silly Martian post which again I have refuted and again you ignore.

It almost seems as though you are so indoctinated in your philosophical almost religous belief that taxation=theft/violence/slavery that you cannot even look at the possibility of it not being true. Instead of assesing and refuting or agreeing with other points of view, you keep restating in a different way your own convictions. Now if you could try and come up with a LOGICAL arguement againt my point of view, I may not agree but at least eventually we could agree to disagree. Instead you insist on ignoring what I say, then claim I said something else that fits in with your own point of view. That is not having a logical, reasoned discussion.

I will ask again, will you reply to my post?

June 19, 2011

5. Dawh wasn't criminalizing anybody, just showing that minimum wage laws protect those who need protection. Can a father of six really afford to work for as little as a single man in his early twenties? No. This allows the father to compete.

By supporting minimum wage laws you are in fact criminalizing people who offer people work for less than "minimum wage" and are criminalizing the people who agree to work for those wages as well.

Also, 0:50 onwards for those of you who still don't see that taxation is coercive:

Edited June 19, 2011 by Use the Force

Quag · June 19, 2011

gvg I see your huffington post and reply with this:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

That link was a reply to Quag saying that taxes weren't part of it. They are (and they aren't a few precentage points lower, they are at lest 50% lower for the rich (don't know about the rest) only in that they aren't enough to fix what needs to be fixed. Although it should be noted that all of the countries with higher tax rates (like the netherlands (was it them or Denmark?) and Germany) also spend on things like public health care and, for Germany, free college tuition and yet still are less indebted than us (Germany has a freakin' 1.5 trillion dollar surplus). And we were better of in the 90's without the Bush tax cuts (it was under Bush that the debt inflated).

I am not sure what the 50% lower for the rich is in reference to, so I'll ignroe that. However I would like to point out that Germany does not have a 1.5 trillion surplus it actually has a $63 billion deficit. Again I point out that Carter had very high tax rates and a major recession that ended after reagan reduced taxes.

But in actuality, i blame the debt on the wars and the fact that we owe 50% of our debt to the Fed (which, as I've mentioned before, is a private bank.) That's what's the real issue. The taxes are only a factor in that they aren't helping.

I agree with all but the tax bit at the end. Spending is the major problem not tax rates. I think they will have to go up, due to the hole you guys are in, but if it wasn't for the excessive spending then there would be no need for tax increases.

Here's an illuminating chart regarding the cause of the current debt. The chart shows that the largest, single contributor to our debt is the Bush Tax Cuts, but the wars and the economic downturn also contributed heavily. The single biggest thing we could do to reduce the size of the debt would be to end the Bush tax cuts.

That chart is making assumptions. It assumes the rate of economic growth under higher taxes would be the same (historically proven false) It assumes the income to the govt from the higher taxes would follow that exconomic growth. again read the article i linked. heres another http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

Also the Laffer curve http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

And another: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/why-70.html

UTF please note I (tried) to use facts and arguements against Dawh and gvg. I did not try and twist their words but pointed out the errors ie 1.5 trillion surplus for germany. This is called a logical discussion. Claiming everywhere over and over again that taxation is THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY and ignoring others attempts to disagree is not attempting logical discussion.

gvg, dawh Do you think UTF will ever reply to my reposts?

June 20, 2011

gvg I see your huffington post and reply with this:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

I am not sure what the 50% lower for the rich is in reference to, so I'll ignroe that. However I would like to point out that Germany does not have a 1.5 trillion surplus it actually has a $63 billion deficit. Again I point out that Carter had very high tax rates and a major recession that ended after reagan reduced taxes.

I agree with all but the tax bit at the end. Spending is the major problem not tax rates. I think they will have to go up, due to the hole you guys are in, but if it wasn't for the excessive spending then there would be no need for tax increases.

That chart is making assumptions. It assumes the rate of economic growth under higher taxes would be the same (historically proven false) It assumes the income to the govt from the higher taxes would follow that exconomic growth. again read the article i linked. heres another http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/
Also the Laffer curve http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/
And another: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/why-70.html

UTF please note I (tried) to use facts and arguements against Dawh and gvg. I did not try and twist their words but pointed out the errors ie 1.5 trillion surplus for germany. This is called a logical discussion. Claiming everywhere over and over again that taxation is THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY and ignoring others attempts to disagree is not attempting logical discussion.

gvg, dawh Do you think UTF will ever reply to my reposts?

I agree with your criticisms that you made to gvg in your post; that's good discussion.

As for, "Claiming everywhere over and over again that taxation is THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY and ignoring others attempts to disagree is not attempting logical discussion," and "Do you think UTF will ever reply to my reposts?" I am no longer bothering to discuss this issue with you because what you have said in your previous posts has made me think that continuing discussing this issue with you would be a complete waste of my time (i.e. UtF doesn't think UtF will ever reply to your reposts).

So please refer to the video I attached to my previous post if you still disagree that taxation is coercive. I know you live in Canada, but for the sake of the example used in the video, imagine that you live in the U.S. and are being taxed for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars (or come up with another example of something that you are being taxed for that you don't think you should be forced to fund and substitute that in for the Iraq War example used in the video). Then ask yourself why are you "voluntarily" pay taxes for it if you don't actually support it? You must conclude that either you are a hypocrite or else that taxation is indeed coercive. As I doubt that you are a hypocrite (i.e. I doubt you would voluntarily pay for something that you are opposed to), I think you'll find that the reason why you pay for things that you don't support and the reason why people like me pay for things like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that we don't support is because the government coerces people into paying taxes.

If you manage to come to a conclusion in which you're not a hypocrite and taxation still isn't coercive, then you must be one of the very few people who agrees with everything that the government makes you pay taxes for. While I highly doubt that is the case, if it is the case, look at me: I am someone who is clearly opposed to funding the U.S.'s wars. So do you consider me a hypocrite for voluntarily paying for the wars that I consider immoral or do you admit that the reason why I pay for these wars is because the government coerces me into paying for them?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coerce

"co·erce

[koh-urs] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.

1.

to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2.

to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.

to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual."

Edited June 20, 2011 by Use the Force

gvg · June 20, 2011

Quag: On Reagan: http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-06-09/business/17430568_1_deficits-billion-defense-spending http://zfacts.com/p/318.html http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/ronald-reagan-began-us-government-deficit-spending-addiction Though I will admit I see a lot of stuff saying it was a large part spending too. But you cannot dismiss the role taxes played.

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States It is a list of recessions. I do notice that they do all come after your tax cutting presidents. Seriously, the roaring 20's was really a time of large credit use, etc. and when it blew up, it BLEW UP. (I am not an economist, so I may be interpreting this wrong).

Also, the last sentence of your first article: "In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return." This is very true. I mean, American corporations only pay 14 or so percent tax on average (GE got a rebate and paid nothing), even though we have a 35% corporate tax. Definitely, the tax code needs to be cleaned up.

http://www.pbnv.com/a/im-with-my-conservative-friends-bring-back-the-1950s-as-seen-on-tv/ (He's being sarcastic at times, and claims that increasing taxes will be the only thing needed to fix things. Ignore those.) The fifties seem to go majorly against your argument, no? 90% tax on the rich and yet the economy boomed (which I doubt you can deny: http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1950.html) A combination of high taxes and 'fiscal responsibility.' It worked then. Wouldn't it work now? 90% rich tax is extreme, obviously, I wouldn't go that high.

Also, i feel this is something we should include in this discussion: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph Thoughts Quag?

Oh, and your last link (tax revenue as GDP hovers under 10%) seems to contradict the second/third one (18-20%), unless i am interpreting that wrong.

And on the Germany thing: Yeah, guess I was wrong. i think i was thinking of something else, because this shows that scandinavia is doing a hell of a job http://seekingalpha.com/article/158722-list-of-european-surplus-and-deficit-countries. What's intriguing is that they have similar labor forces to the US http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/02/15/why-does-scandinavia-have-high-taxes-but-also-high-labor-force-participation/ with much higher taxes. The reason offered is, of course, that the US psends its money on crap, while Scandinavia generally spends it on things that help the labor force. Interesting to read.

And UtF: I will get to your video later, i don't have time at the moment.

Edited June 20, 2011 by gvg

Quag · June 20, 2011

As for, "Claiming everywhere over and over again that taxation is THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY and ignoring others attempts to disagree is not attempting logical discussion," and "Do you think UTF will ever reply to my reposts?" I am no longer bothering to discuss this issue with you because what you have said in your previous posts has made me think that continuing discussing this issue with you would be a complete waste of my time (i.e. UtF doesn't think UtF will ever reply to your reposts).

Ok so on my 6th repost you say you havent answered any of the previous 5 because of something I added to the 6th?

Come on UTF admit it, you havent answered because you can't answer and still pretend that taxatione = theft/violence/slavery. Dont be a hypocrite yourself answer my post or admit that you are wrong. a failure to answer I will accept as an admission that you know your premise is false.

So please refer to the video I attached to my previous post if you still disagree that taxation is coercive. I know you live in Canada, but for the sake of the example used in the video, imagine that you live in the U.S. and are being taxed for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars (or come up with another example of something that you are being taxed for that you don't think you should be forced to fund and substitute that in for the Iraq War example used in the video). Then ask yourself why are you "voluntarily" pay taxes for it if you don't actually support it? You must conclude that either you are a hypocrite or else that taxation is indeed coercive. As I doubt that you are a hypocrite (i.e. I doubt you would voluntarily pay for something that you are opposed to), I think you'll find that the reason why you pay for things that you don't support and the reason why people like me pay for things like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that we don't support is because the government coerces people into paying taxes.

Sorry havent seen the video yet, puter wont let me see it, but I can answer your arguements here. When I get the chance to view it i'll comment on it.

I do not believe I have anywhere said taxation is a great and wonderul thing, nor have I said i agree with everything the govt does. YOU HAVE SAID ALL TAXATION IS THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY. I can agree with you that some taxes are onerous and wrong (surtaxes being a great example) but I just have to prove to you that 1 single tax is not theft and your premise fails. You have to prove all taxes are theft/violence/slavery for your premise to stand. you keep refering to the war in iraq/afghanistan but ignore the other taxes and just assume if one tax is wrong all taxes are wrong. Sorry you made the blanket statement I just poked wholes in it. I have done so over and over again with municipal taxes and you have ignored my arguements over and over again. I am not the hypocrite here my friend. I just happen to be someone who understands that extremes tend to be disasterous.

you manage to come to a conclusion in which you're not a hypocrite and taxation still isn't coercive, then you must be one of the very few people who agrees with everything that the government makes you pay taxes for.

¸

Read above I am not a hypocrite and do not believe everything the govt does.

I agree with the definition of coerce i disagree with your use of it.

Quag · June 20, 2011

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States It is a list of recessions. I do notice that they do all come after your tax cutting presidents. Seriously, the roaring 20's was really a time of large credit use, etc. and when it blew up, it BLEW UP. (I am not an economist, so I may be interpreting this wrong).

Actually gvg they do not coincide, please refer to these 2 sites for us tax rates and to your own post on recessions.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

You mentioned the 50's as an example of high tax rates buit there were 2 recessions in the 50's one in fact coincided with the highest tax rate 92%

Also, i feel this is something we should include in this discussion: http://motherjones.c...ica-chart-graph Thoughts Quag?

Yes I have some thoughts I always have thoughts

Ok what that graph shows has nothing to do with the tax rates. You seem to be implying that the tax rate should be used to regulate the disparity between rich and poor. This i completely disagree with. Taxes should be used to pay for govt and nothing more. If there are inequalities they can be dealt with far more effectively in other ways. The bit about CEO's incomes for example. It isnt that they should be taxed more but that the way their pay scales/bonus structure is made is all wrong. It used to be that the CEO would normally stay a fairly long time with a company and work hard to increase the value of that company. Shareholders would hold them accountable. Nowadays however it is large pensions or mutual funds that hold most of the shares. They could care less about the company and only look at the stock value. this has led CEO's to work only on getting their bonus Ie short term stock increase. If it goes down then they lay off employees or sell of portions of the company just to have a net profit at the end of the year. the overall health of the company is no longer relevant. Air Canada was a great example, the then CEO Milton sold all of Air canada's airplanes after 911 then leased them back. (90% of Air Canadas fleet was OWNED and already paid for, ie no loans to repay) Air canada was the only western airline to post a profit after 911, but at a heavy pricve. Milton made millions in bonus and stock options. later the company approached bankruptcy he organized a plan with a wealthy guy from Hong Kong the plan included him getting 20 million in bonuses for saving the company from bankruptcy. this happened over and over again. Taxes are not the way to fix these kinds of problems regulations are.

Oh, and your last link (tax revenue as GDP hovers under 10%) seems to contradict the second/
third one (18-20%), unless i am interpreting that wrong

couldn't actually find this sorry, although it is possible. You cannot believe every statistic you find on the internet. In fact you should be very suspicious of them. I knew your 1.5 trillion number was wrong because it didnt make sense the German economy is too small to have such a surplus. That is why I posted several links I try and find a consensus.

And on the Germany thing: Yeah, guess I was wrong. i think i was thinking of something else, because this shows that scandinavia is doing a hell of a job http://seekingalpha....icit-countries. What's intriguing is that they have similar labor forces to the US http://healthcare-ec...-participation/ with much higher taxes. The reason offered is, of course, that the US psends its money on crap, while Scandinavia generally spends it on things that help the labor force. Interesting to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Please note that the first link shows that Sweden has a lower corportate rate than the US and the 2nd shows that sweden has been lowering its personal rate as well.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Quag

June 20, 2011

Ok so on my 6th repost you say you havent answered any of the previous 5 because of something I added to the 6th?

I said "I am no longer bothering to discuss this issue with you because what you have said in your previous posts has made me think that continuing discussing this issue with you would be a complete waste of my time." Notice the pluralization of "posts." So no, I'm not replying because of your apparent stubbornness in your last dozen or more posts. It really should be quite clear that taxation is coercive and if you still haven't figured it out after all of these posts then I'm just going to refer you to the video for a clear and concise summary of the argument. Either you must call me a hypocrite for voluntarily paying for things that I say I am strongly opposed to or else you must admit that taxation is coercive--those are the only two logical possibilities. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you on this.

Come on UTF admit it, you havent answered because you can't answer and still pretend that taxatione = theft/violence/slavery. Dont be a hypocrite yourself answer my post or admit that you are wrong. a failure to answer I will accept as an admission that you know your premise is false.

All of your reposts have supposedly been about trying to understand why I think taxation is coercive ("Now for you to disagree with me you must say NO to one of these questions, please inform me which one it is and why, Then I can begin to try and understand where you are coming from"). If I no longer provide any more reasons to explain where I am coming from then you certainly shouldn't take that as "an admission that know [my] premise is false." That would be irrational, especially since I have provided a very good reason as to why I'm not answering you any longer (the waste of time, seeing as I have tried answering you for hours and it hasn't shown any signs of working) and have provided you with a summary of an argument (the video) anyways that should adequately argue to you why taxation is coercive by itself. So if you still think paying taxes is voluntary, then I defer you to the video for why I think taxation is coercive. If after examining the argument in the video you still don't think that taxation is coercive, then I'm certain it would definitely be a waste of time to continue discussing this point with you. You're free to falsely assume that I think taxation is voluntary (which would be extremely hypocritical of me) if you want--I won't try to correct you any longer.

Sorry havent seen the video yet, puter wont let me see it, but I can answer your arguements here. When I get the chance to view it i'll comment on it.
I do not believe I have anywhere said taxation is a great and wonderul thing, nor have I said i agree with everything the govt does. YOU HAVE SAID ALL TAXATION IS THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY. I can agree with you that some taxes are onerous and wrong (surtaxes being a great example) but I just have to prove to you that 1 single tax is not theft and your premise fails. You have to prove all taxes are theft/violence/slavery for your premise to stand. you keep refering to the war in iraq/afghanistan but ignore the other taxes and just assume if one tax is wrong all taxes are wrong. Sorry you made the blanket statement I just poked wholes in it. I have done so over and over again with municipal taxes and you have ignored my arguements over and over again. I am not the hypocrite here my friend. I just happen to be someone who understands that extremes tend to be disasterous.

Perhaps you should take a look at the argument presented in the video. And by the way, to clarify my view, I do consider taxes coercive by definition. If it's not coercive then I don't consider it taxation. So, for example, the $3 fee that Walmart charges to deposit checks or whatever is not a tax because it is completely voluntary whether or not you decide to use Walmart's service and pay the fee--there is no coercion present. As for the government's taxes for things like wars, roads, schools, welfare, etc, yes, all of those things are taxes and they are all coercive.

gvg · June 20, 2011

Quag: Just eaxplain what this quote means. I don't get what the marginal rate is: "Some critics point out that tax revenues almost always rise every year and during Reagan's two terms increases in tax revenue were more shallow than increases in tax revenue during presidencies where taxes top marginal tax rates were higher.[15] Critics also point out that since the Reagan tax cuts, income has not significantly increased for the rest of the population."

And from that, I got that nobody knows what the proper rates is. Some say high, some say low. We are currently in the lowest tax in a LONG time. And with the wars that need to be paid for, maybe its time to try the higher one once again. I dunno. I'm not an economist =)

And Sweden lowered its rates in 2002 to the rates in the first graph, but yes, I see where it says it lowered. But that's the mean rate. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Politics Under economy) says that the typical worker receives 40% of his paycheck, although that is probably not just from income taxes. And Sweden may have a lower rate, but I bet their corporations pay more than the 14% (about) that US corporations actually pay due to the many loopholes that need fixing.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/real-economist-michael-hudson-explains-why-higher-taxes-not-lower-ones-create-jobs This guy, an economist, claims that higher taxes create more jobs. Listen to him, and i wanna know what you think. I am not that great with economics, so...

June 21, 2011

I haven't spent a lot of time checking the links. I would find a brief summary of their content helpful in following this thread. I tend not to follow links when I don't know the website they link to.

I do have my own links today, both from the political blog TalkingPointsMemo, my favorite political blog. They both have to do with subjects that we've been discussing here recently.

While not directly connected to gvg's and Quag's tax rate debate, this article quotes one of the largest US Bond traders in the world and his comments on the idiocy of current political "wisdom" regarding financial policy. The Republicans have had a rhetorical fixation on "job creation" without any actual legislative actions that operate upon that rhetoric (and oftentimes, the actual legislation will kill jobs). Bill Gross, founder of PIMCO, an investment management company, "says members' of Congress incessant focus on deficit -- and in particular, the manner in which they obsess about deficits -- is foolhardy, and a recipe for disaster. What the country needs, Gross said, is real stimulus now, and a measured return toward fiscal balance in the years ahead." What he says is significant in part because he's such a big player in the US Bond market, so it's his job to pay attention to how policy will affect US debt.

The other article is rather more depressing and runs as a direct counter to some of UtF's arguments. A retired, uninsured truck driver in North Carolina tried to get himself arrested by robbing a bank to get medical care in prison: "And so one morning Verone hailed a cab, headed to (the randomly-chosen) RBC bank, and handed the teller a note 'demanding one dollar, and medical attention.'" As it turns out, $1 doesn't represent enough money to be considered a "bank robbery," so he was only arrested for committing "larceny from a person." It was part of a stunt on his part as he also wrote a letter to the local paper that explained what he was doing that day and why. It just seems wrong to me that a person can work hard all of his life and still be left destitute at the end of it, simply because his skills were not deemed "worth" the cost.

And in reference to my statement about "Money = Power," UtF, you really took me far too literally. It was a bit hyperbolic, as I understand that people with more money have more opportunities, but gvg was right in part with his defense of my statement. Money should not dictate a person's place in society. To quote Atticus Finch, people should be "equal under the law." Of course, your world wouldn't have any law per se, but it would still have functional laws in that people would be limited in their freedom, purely on the basis of how much money they have. That's the primary thing to which I object.

That still happens in this country now, but it's an ideal that the penniless pauper will receive the same treatment under the government's auspices as the miserly millionaire. There are still a lot of ways that that ideal fails in our current system, but that is the goal of the system. But you want to dismantle that system and leave everyone to fend for themselves in the State of Nature. I agree with most of the political philosophers in believing that we as a society have an obligation to come together to remove people from the vagaries of Nature, since we have the capacity to overcome it communally.

One thing in particular that bothers me about your ideal society is banking. In your ideal world, banks would be competing for business the same as any other company. So what if I put my life savings into a bank, and while the bank serves all of my needs perfectly fine, it loses too many customers to competitors and goes bankrupt. What happens to my money? I invested in the bank and put my money in there with the expectation that I would be able to get it whenever I needed it. But now the bank is gone and doesn't have the assets to pay me (or any other patrons) back. Do we just lose our savings? Do we have to buy bank insurance with some of our hard-earned cash? :blink:

Before the Great Depression, there was no insurance for banks and everyone just expected the system to work. But when the stock market crashed, there was an economic panic and everyone tried to pull their money out of the banks at once, creating a "run on the banks." Since banks take your money and reinvest it (the way they make money off of it), they didn't have every cent of everyone's money available for withdrawal, so a lot of banks went under as a result and a lot of people who had relied on the banks lost their life savings when the banks failed.

That's why the government created the FDIC. The FDIC is supposed to insure the money in all complying banks up to a certain amount, so that even if the bank fails, the government will be able to pay you back what you are owed by the bank. It's had a great stabilizing effect on the banks as people can invest in the banks without having to worry if they will lose their money if the bank fails. If everyone had to insure their own money separately, it would be much more expensive for each individual and many people would be forced to go uninsured because the cost would be too high for what they could afford. They would, again, be stuck hoping that nothing goes wrong, with little recourse in the event that something bad does happen.

June 22, 2011

I don't see how the "retired, uninsured truck driver in North Carolina [who] tried to get himself arrested by robbing a bank to get medical care in prison" "runs as a direct counter to some of [my] arguments." I know that I said that I personally wouldn't initiate force against people to get medical care that I couldn't afford, but I certainly wasn't saying that I thought other people would do the same. I'm well aware that people like that truck driver and people like you who support a government universal health care system actually do support initiating force against others to force them to pay for your medical bills. So if you could clarify why you think this person runs as a direct counter to my arguments, that would be appreciated.

"Of course, your world wouldn't have any law per se, but it would still have functional laws in that people would be limited in their freedom, purely on the basis of how much money they have."

In a stateless society you can live a life with absolute no money at all and still have "power" and ability to get goods and services that they want so I wouldn't say that people would be limited in their freedom on the basis of how much money they have. I would say that their freedoms wouldn't be limited at all. And if their freedoms are limited, they certainly wouldn't be limited as much as they are limited under a government, in which the government has the legal right to initiate violence against them.

"That still happens in this country now, but it's an ideal that the penniless pauper will receive the same treatment under the government's auspices as the miserly millionaire. There are still a lot of ways that that ideal fails in our current system, but that is the goal of the system. But you want to dismantle that system and leave everyone to fend for themselves in the State of Nature. I agree with most of the political philosophers in believing that we as a society have an obligation to come together to remove people from the vagaries of Nature, since we have the capacity to overcome it communally."

When you say that I want to "leave everyone to fend for themselves in the State of Nature" you again sound like you don't think anyone is charitable. The "State of Nature" isn't a bad place at all; it's just a place where less-productive people can't threaten more-productive people with violence if the more-productive people don't give them health care and other goods and services. This doesn't mean that the more-productive people can't be charitable by voluntarily giving the less-productive people health care.

I very much care about the poor and would love for everyone to be able to get decent quality health care as well (is this equivalent to wanting to "remove people from the vagaries of Nature"?), I just think that pointing guns at people to force them to give up some of their wealth to help the poor get health care is the wrong way to do it.

As for your banking fear, if you think there's a decent chance that your bank is going to go bankrupt then I would strongly advise you not to invest your life savings into that one bank. I think it would be wise to make sure that you always have a way to transfer your savings from bank to bank in case one of your banks begins to fail. If you didn't feel secure with any bank you certainly still have more options such as relying on your friends and family to support you in your old age or perhaps by investing your money in physical goods that you know will be valuable still years down the road so that you can then sell those goods once you're old and retired and need some more money to buy food and everything else.

Anyways, I'm certainly very far away from being an expert on banking or similar services, but my question to you is what makes you think that the initiation of force is necessary for you to make sure that you can get everything you need in your old age? Do you really need the FDIC to have a happy retirement? Aren't there endless voluntary solutions to the question of how to make sure you are fed, sheltered, and taken care of in your old age? I just don't see why violence would be needed at all. If you want to describe a specific problem that you think you can only adequately solve by initiating force against people then I'll be glad to try to find you a voluntary, non-violent solution.

gvg · June 22, 2011

"In a stateless society you can live a life with absolute no money at all and still have "power" and ability to get goods and services that they want so I wouldn't say that people would be limited in their freedom on the basis of how much money they have"

BS. Absolute BS. They would have no choice in what they buy or do. THEY HAVE NO MONEY. Unlike the millionaire, who can go to Disney Land every weekend, one with no money has to use cheap places like Walmart to survive, even if they disagree with Walmart's crappy international doings. They have no choice. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

"When you say that I want to "leave everyone to fend for themselves in the State of Nature" you again sound like you don't think anyone is charitable. The "State of Nature" isn't a bad place at all; it's just a place where less-productive people can't threaten more-productive people with violence if the more-productive people don't give them health care and other goods and services. This doesn't mean that the more-productive people can't be charitable by voluntarily giving the less-productive people health care."

But they won't. They never have. You think the Koch brothers care about you? Think the head of Goldman Sachs gives about your chronic disease? No. For every Bill Gates, there are dozens or more that don't care. And Bill Gates can't help everyone nor does he know everyone. And if you are too poor to buy a car or use the private road or the private busing, you can't go to them. In that case, you are f*****. And that's it. Nature is a cruel master. The deer born with no legs never has a chance, and instead suffers and dies. No one cares, no one helps. And humans are animals, plain and simple. No one helped the peasants in the fuedal systems of mideival Europe. Weak links were killed or left to die before the first civilizations developed (through infanticide, etc.). No, nature sucks. That's why no one wants to go back to those days. And that is what you are advocating. No one will help anyone they don't have to. There are the select few who would, like me, you, Dawh, QUag, etc. But none of us are millionaires; we couldn't do anything expensive. And those who could won't. Realize that.

"I very much care about the poor and would love for everyone to be able to get decent quality health care as well (is this equivalent to wanting to "remove people from the vagaries of Nature"?), I just think that pointing guns at people to force them to give up some of their wealth to help the poor get health care is the wrong way to do it."

Just wondering, due you value money over human life? That's what this implies. Seriously, enough. After all, many American's (I think it was either 7 mil or 47%, either way a lot) don't pay income tax. And they may live in a state with no property tax or sales tax. So guess what? They don't pay taxes. So obviously there doesn't seem to be as much gun pointing as you think.

"As for your banking fear, if you think there's a decent chance that your bank is going to go bankrupt then I would strongly advise you not to invest your life savings into that one bank. I think it would be wise to make sure that you always have a way to transfer your savings from bank to bank in case one of your banks begins to fail. If you didn't feel secure with any bank you certainly still have more options such as relying on your friends and family to support you in your old age or perhaps by investing your money in physical goods that you know will be valuable still years down the road so that you can then sell those goods once you're old and retired and need some more money to buy food and everything else."

What if you're poor and this is all you can afford? What if your family and friends are dead or too poor to help? (In the past, the poor were considered a liability and often disposed of). What if your physical good becomes valueless? (Not everyone is an economist; you could be wrong). What if it doesn't give you enough for your heart surgery, or enough to live by? In your system, the poor suffer, and the wealthy thrive. Plain and simple. Stop deluding yourself into thinking mankind is charitable. At the end of the day, we are all animals, and we also can't afford everything. You know why Reoublicans want to cut public schools, taxes, etc.? TO ADD TO WHAT THEY HAVE. They don't care about the poor. And I know that's just one group, but you get the point. In your system, the rich have the power. It will decay into fuedalism; this is inevitable because people want protection, and that's a way to get it. Why do you think people decided to leave that system when they could? IT SUCKED. (And yes they'll need protection, since it is our military that keeps us safe. It has been misused recently, but it is still the reason no one wants to mess with us. Japan did. Look what happened to them.)

Edited June 22, 2011 by gvg

June 22, 2011

gvg: I'm sorry, but your entire last post was bogus. I said I wasn't going to waste my time with this so I'll reply as briefly as I can (although I doubt it will be too brief).

Walmart doesn't force anyone to buy their products. Governments force people to buy their products. Walmart doesn't "force" competitors out of business. Consumers "force" competitors out of business by voluntarily choosing to shop at Walmart when the new Walmart gets built instead of shopping at the competitor stores that they used to shop at.

"You think the Koch brothers care about you?"

Not much at all, if at all, no. Do you think I should point a gun at them to force them to give me some of their money though? This is the question of our debate. I say of course not and you still seem to say yes. Why? Why should I point a gun at the Koch brothers? Why should you point a gun at them? How does that even cross your mind as moral for one second? They got their money through interacting with people voluntarily making voluntary trades. Why do you now want to point guns at them for being uncommonly productive businessmen? If I were to hire you for a simple job at a wage that you thought was generous and then I was to turn on you later and point a gun at you and say, "Give me back some of that money because I think you have too much money," wouldn't you tell me to get lost? We both voluntarily agreed on the wage of your job and then I turn on you with a gun and ask for some of the money back--how does that make sense at all? I agreed to give you that money for the job that you did for me--you didn't steal the money from me. If you stole it from me it might be reasonable for me to point a gun at you and ask for the money back, but because I voluntarily agreed on the price and voluntarily gave you the money then it should be very clear that it would be wrong of me to point a gun at you and demand some of the money back.

"That's why no one wants to go back to those days. And that is what you are advocating."

It seems that you still imagine society spiraling into chaos as soon as you stop pointing guns at non-criminals like me. The initiation of force is wrong, but you seem to think that if you don't coerce people then people are going to drop dead left and right.

"No one will help anyone they don't have to. There are the select few who would, like me, you, Dawh, QUag, etc"

No one will help anyone if they aren't forced to EXCEPT for EVERYONE on this thread? What--do you think we are the only ones? I think you might be the one living in a bubble, not me. What about every last parent in the world who charitably gives their children bodies despite not being forced to? What about your parents who raised you voluntarily? Likely only your state education, the roads in front of your house, maybe some health care, and a few other things (wars, etc) are provided for you by pointing guns at people. Everything else--from your house to your food to the time spent taking care of you as a child--was generously and charitably provided to you voluntarily by your parents. When your parents read to you as a child and cared for you when you were sick, then didn't do it because someone was pointing a gun at them forcing them to. No, they were being charitable completely voluntarily. And it's not just your parents--you likely have some relatives and friends who have helped you as well? Not everyone asks that you pay them or do a favor for them in return in order for them to help you. Your view that "no one will help anyone [if] they don't have to" is clearly false--all you have to do to see it is look around you. Are you paying to use this forum?

"And those who could won't. Realize that."

No, you realize that "many of those who can, do." It's a fact that you can see is true by looking in almost any direction.

Me: "I very much care about the poor and would love for everyone to be able to get decent quality health care as well (is this equivalent to wanting to "remove people from the vagaries of Nature"?), I just think that pointing guns at people to force them to give up some of their wealth to help the poor get health care is the wrong way to do it."

gvg: "Just wondering, due you value money over human life? That's what this implies."

Your question makes me think you don't know what money is and also makes me think that you overlook the fact that everyone dies eventually. Anyways, just because someone may be capable of prolonging another person's life doesn't mean that they should and certainly doesn't mean that you should coerce them into prolonging the other person's life against their will by threatening to lock them up or shoot them if they don't.

"After all, many American's (I think it was either 7 mil or 47%, either way a lot) don't pay income tax. And they may live in a state with no property tax or sales tax. So guess what? They don't pay taxes. So obviously there doesn't seem to be as much gun pointing as you think."

So obviously there doesn't seem to be as much gun pointing as I think? What is that supposed to mean? Seriously, to me it seems like you're trying to deny to yourself the fact that you're supporting using violence against innocent people by supporting the state with that statement. I'm well aware of the fact that there are many people who don't have to pay income tax because they don't make very much money. What does this have to do with the morality of pointing guns at a smaller number of more productive people though? Nothing. It seems like you're trying to avoid the reality that you are threatening me with violence when you demand that I pay my income taxes by pointing out that there are some other people who don't make much money that the government doesn't force to pay income taxes.

Here's an analogy to explain the situation:

Person 1: "Give me your money!"

Person 2: "No, I don't want to!"

Person 1: *Pulls out gun*

Person 2: "Ahh!!" *Hands over money*

Later on...

Person 2: "You threatened me with force to coerce me into giving you my money; that is wrong!"

Person 1: No I didn't. And I'm not pointing my gun in as many places as you think because I'm not pointing my gun at that guy over there who doesn't have very much money!"

You're 1 and I'm 2 by the way. You're denying still that by taxing me you are threatening me with violence if I don't give you a portion of my money (the "No I didn't" part) and you're trying to pretend that "obviously there doesn't seem to be as much gun pointing as think" with the complete non sequitur that you're not pointing a gun at some other person. So you're not pointing a gun at some other person... okay... what does that have to do with the gun you're pointing at me for my income taxes?

"What if you're poor and this is all you can afford? What if your family and friends are dead or too poor to help? (In the past, the poor were considered a liability and often disposed of). What if your physical good becomes valueless? (Not everyone is an economist; you could be wrong). What if it doesn't give you enough for your heart surgery, or enough to live by? In your system, the poor suffer, and the wealthy thrive. Plain and simple. Stop deluding yourself into thinking mankind is charitable. At the end of the day, we are all animals, and we also can't afford everything. You know why Reoublicans want to cut public schools, taxes, etc.? TO ADD TO WHAT THEY HAVE. They don't care about the poor. And I know that's just one group, but you get the point. In your system, the rich have the power. It will decay into fuedalism; this is inevitable because people want protection, and that's a way to get it. Why do you think people decided to leave that system when they could? IT SUCKED. (And yes they'll need protection, since it is our military that keeps us safe. It has been misused recently, but it is still the reason no one wants to mess with us. Japan did. Look what happened to them.)"

I'm not deluded into thinking people are charitable. You're the one who is deluded into thinking that without the state pointing guns at people to force them to fund state schools and welfare then society would collapse into chaos and there would be people starving to death everywhere you look. It's an extremely irrational and unfounded belief, but you have been brainwashed to believe in it. You're trying desperately to rationalize the belief because you would absolutely hate to think that you have been supporting the government's violence when the violence is completely unnecessary. You're like a religious person making the most absurd rationalizations that God is real because he can't stand the truth that he has been worshiping a fairy tale. So many intelligent religious people make the most absurd rationalizations to convince themselves that God is real because they are too afraid to see the truth that they have been believing in a myth and you're doing the same thing with the state. What if you're poor and and have no family or friends and can't work and nobody will help you, how will you get by? You're trying desperately to rationalize your threat of violence against people to coerce them into paying for government welfare, education, and everything else. You would only support pointing guns at people if you thought that it was absolutely necessary. The coercion is clearly unnecessary--God is clearly a myth. But, rather than admit that you are wrong about the initiation of force being necessary--rather than admit that you have been worshiping a myth this whole time--you come up with these rationalizations and desperate attempts to justify your support of violence. God isn't real and it's not nearly as big a deal to admit this as many religious people make it out to be. Similarly, the state's coercion isn't necessary and it's not a big deal to admit this. However, just like the religious people desperately trying to hold on to their belief that God is real, you are desperately trying to hold on to your belief that the government's violence is good and necessary. I don't know why people do it with gods and I don't know why people do it with states, but I think it has something to do with indoctrination. Once someone has been indoctrinated into believing something like that something happens in their brain and they just don't want to believe that they're wrong. And no matter how smart they are, how logical they are, how educated they are, they manage to rationalize their beliefs in gods and states in one way or another. I don't know how they do it or what is making them cling on to the beliefs so strongly, but that is what happens.

June 22, 2011

I have to admit that I'm getting rather bored with this "discussion" as it has basically boiled down to "dawh, gvg, quag, etc." present evidence/reasons for why the system we have is the best we can expect at this time," followed by "UtF ignores, rejects out of hand, or otherwise refuses to look at the world through any lens other than the one he has chosen." Rinse, repeat. UtF finally conceded a few pages back that his views are opinions rather than facts or reasons, but he continues to treat them as inviolable truths in his statements. I've always tried to find facts or other statements of support to back up my assertions and when they are my own opinions, I try to make it clear that they are my beliefs alone (usually still based on reasons).

UtF, you claim to be a political naif and yet you are the most dogmatic one here. So far as I can see, you are the only one who hasn't tried to look at things from a different perspective. It is your opinion that taxes are violent and it is your opinion that violence in immoral. Maybe we agree with some of that in some fashion, maybe we don't. But without a factual basis or logical backing for those assertions, they are assertions that aren't particularly persuasive.

Your only sources for your views have been Molineux, Ayn Rand (and John Galt). So far as I can tell, no one else here considers any of them to be authority figures of merit. That's your first obstacle. We reject your premises (to varying degrees), which leaves you with arguments inconsistent with our own premises. Without an agreement of initial premises, we really can't make any headway from a logical perspective.

In part, the fundamental problem is that you value your "personal freedom" above all else, while I would say we value the "public safety" more than "personal freedom." We want society to be safe and as worry-free as we can make it. If people have to constantly worry about paying for every single scrap of piece of mind that they can get, then their own appreciation of life will deteriorate.

I just read an article on Salon that startled me in regard to how prescient the author was of the arguments on this board (while having no known connection to this thread). He talked about the proliferation of fees for traveling on Spirit Airlines and quoted the CEO as saying:

"We believe it is important to let customers decide what is of value to them. We want to give them the ability to choose the extras they want without forcing them to pay for add-ons they don't want or need," said Spirit President and CEO Ben Baldanza in a press release. "Why would you want to pay for services you don't use?"

Which, so far as I can see, aligns perfectly with UtF's views. And while UtF may have a kindred spirit in the Spirit Airlines CEO, I sided more closely with the author's conclusion:

I feel, instead, like a cog in a great machine, defining myself and everyone else solely in terms of how much cash I'm willing to pay for anything and everything. And yes, that irks me, even as I make extra-sure to print out my boarding pass.

I don't find that sort of world appealing. Paradoxical as it may seem, that world offers too much choice. Reading the article reminded me of a book, The Paradox of Choice, which I believe showed up on the Colbert Report a couple of years ago. The Wikipedia article (as is often the case), was somewhat lacking in that it found the lamest way of describing the book's content possible. Though I admit I never read the book, the article didn't really focus on what I remembered from the interview.

As I remember it, the meat of the interview was about how increasing the choices available to people can have diminishing returns on people's satisfaction and contentedness. Of course, having no choice is the simplest situation, but it likely won't be very satisfying. However, if you are presented with dozens of roughly equal choices, that can be just as demoralizing. It may cause you to consider a series of "What ifs..." that lead you to devalue the decision that you did make, even it was a perfectly fine (and perhaps the best) choice. As a trivial example, if I get to have 1 out of 100 chocolates, I might enjoy the one I choose less than if I only had 10 choices, even if I ended up choosing the same one in both cases. Because it leaves me wondering, would I have enjoyed any of those other 99 chocolates more than the one I chose? :unsure: If there were only 9 other choices, it wouldn't be as bad. You want to proliferate these sorts of choices to the nth degree.

It's for these, and all the reasons previously stated, that I find the anarcho-capitalist view less than appealing. If you're going to live in a society, you're going to have to live with some compromises. I don't like paying taxes for the military-industrial complex, but I know that my tax money goes to many other worthy endeavors that I do support. I also don't have to worry about the amount of profit being sliced off the top of all of my payment decisions since, in theory, government isn't in the business of turning a profit. Modern governments are supposed to be interested in serving the populace, so if the populace is unhappy with the government, they can change it. A company is only going to change if they think the status quo will hurt their bottom line.

If a company makes a product where 1 out of 100 has unsafe toxic components, they won't have to change the product until there's enough complaint to warrant a change. If a recall would be expensive and the damage will only present itself in the victims after around five years, what incentive does the leadership of the company have to issue the recall? In a large corporation, chances are the leadership will already be gone from the company by the time anyone notices the problem and traces it back to their products. By then, it will be someone else's problem. They'll have made off like bandits and left the poor sap currently in charge with the hot potato.

This sort of thing happens in the current system, so why should it just magically go away in a world without government? :huh: Enron and Worldcom did it. There are a lot of products made in Chinese factories that have faced recall when government inspectors found unsafe contaminants in them. It happens in the pharmaceutical industry: recalls for Vioxx and Celebrex and a whole host of other medications. These only get discovered because someone does the due diligence to check the work, and checking the work is a money sink. You can't easily profit off inspecting products (and if you can, I would worry about your reliability). That's why I feel that you need an impartial inspector (the government) that doesn't have any skin in the game if the product is approved or not. Their only interest would be in ensuring that their citizens are safe. That's the sort of world I value.

I would finish by saying that you have said that a company is just a collection of individuals and that a government is also just a collection of individuals, but I disagree. I think that a government and a company are both more than the sum of their parts. And as such, it's foolish to treat them as individuals, or even as collections of individuals. They will both make decisions that differ from the decisions that the individuals involved would have made by themselves. So you can't treat them as if they are just people; they are more than that. (I realize that this paragraph is disconnected from the rest of my argument, but it's something that was bothering me from a few pages back.)

gvg · June 22, 2011

Dawh: you got it =)

I just have two things to say, UtF. First, don't be ridiculous, you know I meant parents and what not, I used us as an example, and even then I'm not too sure, because i remember you saying in the last thread that Izzy made that if the poor began begging at your feet, you'd build a fence to keep them away. i don't know if you still think in this fashion, I will admit, but you did say that ('ll even look for the exact quote if you want me to).

And I never said Walmart forced you. it is the fact that you are poor that forces you to have to buy from Walmart, since you cannot afford to go anywhere else. Thus, you are forced to use Walmart, or the 99 cents store, whatever. If you are rich, you can do A LOT more.

And I can find it moral because to me, what helps the most people is, in the end, the best choice. 1 life for 100 is the best choice, even 100 for 110 (though less so) because you save more. So the koch brothers have all this extra money laying around. i don't find money to be more imporant than reducing someone's suffering. It's not like i'm saying "Koch, I'm giving your money to Bill Gates." We are using it to help the citizens of this nation, the middle class and poor, those who need help. If Koch complains because he now has 699 million instead of 700 million, I don't care, because a million dollars for the well being of people (whatever number) is an extremely easy choice. I'm not a communist; I'm not taking it all. I find it selfish the way you put your right to do whatever you want (yes, based in part on what money you have (the rich have more options tha the poor)) over the safety, well-being, etc. of the public.

But anyway, Dawh summed most of it up nicely. And i have to read that book now =)

Edited June 22, 2011 by gvg

June 23, 2011

UtF finally conceded a few pages back that his views are opinions rather than facts or reasons, but he continues to treat them as inviolable truths in his statements. I've always tried to find facts or other statements of support to back up my assertions and when they are my own opinions, I try to make it clear that they are my beliefs alone (usually still based on reasons).

I'll retract this if you'll allow. While I am still currently a moral nihilist / emotivist, I am actually on the way to thinking that there might be an actual way to prove a theory of ethics. Regardless though, my "opinion" that the initiation of force is morally wrong is just as much an "opinion" as the "opinion" that murder is wrong. Perhaps you're not a moral nihilist and you think that murder is wrong as a moral absolute fact or something, in which case I would say that the initiation of force is also just as wrong in an absolute moral factual sense rather than just an emotivist subjective "opinion" sense.

As for the issue of taxation being coercive, I don't know if I said that was an opinion or not before, but now I am going to be clear and say that taxation is definitely coercive in a factual, objective, non-subjective, non-"opinion" sense just like murder is coercive. So for any of you who still disagree with me on this, you're not holding a different "opinion" that I am, but rather you are just incorrect about reality.

UtF, you claim to be a political naif and yet you are the most dogmatic one here. So far as I can see, you are the only one who hasn't tried to look at things from a different perspective. It is your opinion that taxes are violent and it is your opinion that violence in immoral.

Wait, so are you a moral nihilist? Is it your "opinion" that the initiation of violence is moral sometimes?

And no, it's not my opinion that taxes are coercive. It's a fact that taxes are coercive just as much as it is a fact that rape or murder is coercive. If I said that it was an opinion earlier it was because I was trying to cede as much as the argument to you as possible and work from there. For an analogy: If you want to dispute that rape is coercive by arguing that there is some sort of continuum between consensual love making and rape for example, then I wouldn't have been completely confident that the issue of "rape" is always an objective matter. It's possible that I might have ceded to you that it is a subjective matter whether an instance of rape is coercive or not, in the same sense that I might have ceded to you that it is a subjective matter (i.e. "opinion") whether taxation is coercive or not. But, now I want to make it clear that I think that an instance of rape is either rape or it isn't--i.e. it's an objective matter, not a subjective opinion. It's objective despite the possible continuum that you might be able to argue for, because either both people consent to it or someone doesn't consent to it. If someone doesn't consent to it then it is rape in a completely objective sense. Thus, I now firmly hold the position that rape is coercive in a completely objective sense, not in a subjective "opinion" sense. In the same exact sense taxation is coercive. I may have said that it was a subjective "opinion" earlier, but that's because I'm currently a moral nihilist as I've been unable to prove a theory of morality to myself yet. Anyways, I take that back now and instead assert that taxation is coercive in a completely objective, non-subjective, non-"opinion" sense in the exact same way that rape is coercive in an objective sense.

"So far as I can see, you are the only one who hasn't tried to look at things from a different perspective." Well I certainly have looked at things from the other perspective. I was a statist before I was an anarchist and I strongly believed that the state and it's violence was necessary for the greater good of society. It took me many many hours of debating before I finally changed my mind. You all, on the other hand, as far as I can see, have only ever seen your own perspectives that taxation is good and necessary. I once hold your perspective, but then my views changed and so I think I'm really the only one in this thread who you could really say has truly looked at both perspectives.

Also, I don't claim that I'm a political naif. I claim that I only started learning about the world of politics a little more than two years ago. But, I am very confident that I know enough to firmly hold the basic political views that I hold (i.e. non-aggression principle). I don't see why you're trying to discredit my views though by pointing out that I've only been into politics for a couple years though. There are people who hold my very same views that have spent many years, their entire lives, thoroughly investigating the world and their views. If I was one of those people that wouldn't make my views any more or less true. My views are true if they are true and false if they are false... it has nothing to do with how long I have held them.

Maybe we agree with some of that in some fashion, maybe we don't. But without a factual basis or logical backing for those assertions, they are assertions that aren't particularly persuasive.

Did you watch the last YouTube video I linked to that clearly presented a concise argument for the fact that taxation is coercive?

Your only sources for your views have been Molineux, Ayn Rand (and John Galt). So far as I can tell, no one else here considers any of them to be authority figures of merit.

Why do you keep bringing up the "credible sources" (for people stating views/arguments) and "authority figures of merit." Whether or not taxation is coercive or whether or not the initiation of force is wrong is true or false regardless of who says that that is so or who presents the arguments.

That's your first obstacle. We reject your premises (to varying degrees), which leaves you with arguments inconsistent with our own premises. Without an agreement of initial premises, we really can't make any headway from a logical perspective.

Okay... well you still haven't said why you reject my premise. How is taxation voluntary? How is taxation voluntary if people like me who are clearly opposed to paying taxes for things like the U.S.'s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still pay the taxes anyways? Is it because I'm a complete hypocrite? That is the only logical explanation for why I would voluntarily fund wars that I deem immoral. Is that your reason? So far all you have done is say you reject the fact that taxes are coercive without providing an explanation. I have presented my argument, but you're not responding to it. This video is a complete summary of the entire argument--don't just say you disagree with me, explain why. You have to be able to explain why people like me who deem the U.S.'s wars immoral pay for them anyways. It seems to me that it must be either because the taxes are coercive or because I'm a complete hypocrite. What do you say?:

In part, the fundamental problem is that you value your "personal freedom" above all else, while I would say we value the "public safety" more than "personal freedom." We want society to be safe and as worry-free as we can make it. If people have to constantly worry about paying for every single scrap of piece of mind that they can get, then their own appreciation of life will deteriorate.

...

I don't find that sort of world appealing. Paradoxical as it may seem, that world offers too much choice.

Again, if you don't want to make choices yourself, you're completely free to give up your power to other authorities to make those choices for you. There's nothing wrong with that. The issue isn't whether or not you are okay with the government paying for your roads, schools, health care, etc--the issue is whether or not you are okay with forcing me to also give up my power to how to spend my money, etc. I'm fine with you if you want to give all of your money up to some government and have them decide how to spend it. What I'm not fine with is you forcing me to do the same. I don't think "that world offers too much choice" as you say so I would appreciate it if you didn't force me to obey your politicians at gun point.

As I remember it, the meat of the interview was about how increasing the choices available to people can have diminishing returns on people's satisfaction and contentedness. Of course, having no choice is the simplest situation, but it likely won't be very satisfying. However, if you are presented with dozens of roughly equal choices, that can be just as demoralizing. It may cause you to consider a series of "What ifs..." that lead you to devalue the decision that you did make, even it was a perfectly fine (and perhaps the best) choice. As a trivial example, if I get to have 1 out of 100 chocolates, I might enjoy the one I choose less than if I only had 10 choices, even if I ended up choosing the same one in both cases. Because it leaves me wondering, would I have enjoyed any of those other 99 chocolates more than the one I chose? If there were only 9 other choices, it wouldn't be as bad. You want to proliferate these sorts of choices to the nth degree.

Of course I do--and it would be immoral of you to point a gun at me to take those choices (e.g. the choice of how to spend my money) away from me against my will. Again, if you want to give up some of your choices, be my guest. But, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether you are going to point a gun at me to force me to give up some of my choices against my will or not.

It's for these, and all the reasons previously stated, that I find the anarcho-capitalist view less than appealing. If you're going to live in a society, you're going to have to live with some compromises. I don't like paying taxes for the military-industrial complex, but I know that my tax money goes to many other worthy endeavors that I do support. I also don't have to worry about the amount of profit being sliced off the top of all of my payment decisions since, in theory, government isn't in the business of turning a profit. Modern governments are supposed to be interested in serving the populace, so if the populace is unhappy with the government, they can change it. A company is only going to change if they think the status quo will hurt their bottom line.

Governments do a very poor job of serving the populace and they are very hard to change if the populace (i.e. people like me) don't want to pay for the military industrial complex. And a company is much much much better at serving people than a government. A company always changes to meet the customers desires. If it didn't it would be driven out of business by other companies that did better serve the needs of the consumers.

If a company makes a product where 1 out of 100 has unsafe toxic components, they won't have to change the product until there's enough complaint to warrant a change. If a recall would be expensive and the damage will only present itself in the victims after around five years, what incentive does the leadership of the company have to issue the recall? In a large corporation, chances are the leadership will already be gone from the company by the time anyone notices the problem and traces it back to their products. By then, it will be someone else's problem. They'll have made off like bandits and left the poor sap currently in charge with the hot potato.

This sort of thing happens in the current system, so why should it just magically go away in a world without government? Enron and Worldcom did it. There are a lot of products made in Chinese factories that have faced recall when government inspectors found unsafe contaminants in them. It happens in the pharmaceutical industry: recalls for Vioxx and Celebrex and a whole host of other medications. These only get discovered because someone does the due diligence to check the work, and checking the work is a money sink. You can't easily profit off inspecting products (and if you can, I would worry about your reliability). That's why I feel that you need an impartial inspector (the government) that doesn't have any skin in the game if the product is approved or not. Their only interest would be in ensuring that their citizens are safe. That's the sort of world I value.

I would finish by saying that you have said that a company is just a collection of individuals and that a government is also just a collection of individuals, but I disagree. I think that a government and a company are both more than the sum of their parts. And as such, it's foolish to treat them as individuals, or even as collections of individuals. They will both make decisions that differ from the decisions that the individuals involved would have made by themselves. So you can't treat them as if they are just people; they are more than that. (I realize that this paragraph is disconnected from the rest of my argument, but it's something that was bothering me from a few pages back.)

Of course I disagree with you on a lot of this quote, but as it isn't directly related to the main issue of taxation being coercive I'm going to do both of us a favor and not reply until we've sorted out the taxation issue first.

June 23, 2011

Dawh: you got it =)

I just have two things to say, UtF. First, don't be ridiculous, you know I meant parents and what not, I used us as an example, and even then I'm not too sure, because i remember you saying in the last thread that Izzy made that if the poor began begging at your feet, you'd build a fence to keep them away. i don't know if you still think in this fashion, I will admit, but you did say that ('ll even look for the exact quote if you want me to).

If you want to waste your time looking up that quote, that's fine by me. I don't see what the point would be though, because it's not like that would mean I'm not charitable. And even if I was a completely selfish jerk, that still wouldn't have any affect on the issue at hand: whether or not you should use violence against people to coerce them into paying their taxes to the government.

And I never said Walmart forced you. it is the fact that you are poor that forces you to have to buy from Walmart, since you cannot afford to go anywhere else. Thus, you are forced to use Walmart, or the 99 cents store, whatever. If you are rich, you can do A LOT more.

Again, I completely disagree with your use of the word "force." Who is forcing the poor to buy from Walmart (if not Walmart like I assumed you meant)? No one. Poor people shop at Walmart completely voluntarily. They are not forced to shop at Walmart.

And I can find it moral because to me, what helps the most people is, in the end, the best choice. 1 life for 100 is the best choice, even 100 for 110 (though less so) because you save more. So the koch brothers have all this extra money laying around. i don't find money to be more imporant than reducing someone's suffering. It's not like i'm saying "Koch, I'm giving your money to Bill Gates." We are using it to help the citizens of this nation, the middle class and poor, those who need help. If Koch complains because he now has 699 million instead of 700 million, I don't care, because a million dollars for the well being of people (whatever number) is an extremely easy choice. I'm not a communist; I'm not taking it all. I find it selfish the way you put your right to do whatever you want (yes, based in part on what money you have (the rich have more options tha the poor)) over the safety, well-being, etc. of the public.

So are you really saying that you would really go up to Mr. Koch, point a gun at him and say, "Give me some of your money so I can spend it on the poor" ??? That's essentially exactly what you're supporting. You're just supporting subcontracting the thug duties to government officials. But, ignore that subcontract for the moment and pretend that you had to be the person demanding the money from Mr. Koch with the gun in your hands. Would you really be okay with that?

Quag · June 23, 2011

UTF I watched the video and no my position hasn't changed.

You realize he just had an argument with himself and surprise surprise he won it.

He mentioned the slavery thing again, absolutely non sequiter. A slave is forced to work and to live where the master says, you are not. Mostly his argument centres around the war in Iraq. He mentions that you can leave the country to avoid taxes but never deals with that. Unfortunately he never once mentions that you do not even have to leave the country to avoid paying taxes. In fact all the statist arguments he uses are designed to fit in well with his anarchist replies. hmm what a surprise again he won an argument with himself. Can you not see that there is a logical problem with this? Again read Plato he does the same thing.

So once again you are not forced to pay taxes. YOU make choices in your life that require you to pay. It is EXACTLY like going to Walmart and buying a widget. if you take the widget you have to pay. Now, if say Target is on the other side of town but you have to spend 2hrs to get there but they have a cheaper widgets, it does not give you the right to demand that Walmart charge the same or less than Target. You do have the right to go to Target and buy the cheaper widget, it may be inconvenient but that is not the same thing as being forced to buy from Walmart. Until you can explain to me why you are being forced to live in the town you are in as opposed to outside the municipal limits you cannot claim taxation is violence. You choose where you live, not the govt. Your choices oblige you to pay taxes. Do you see the difference? Molyneux refuses to even deal with the question. He mentions it but then ignores it. One of the basic flaws in his argument is that he deals only with the war in Iraq and considers that taxes going to a war are forced (again ignores the fact that you can avoid them if you CHOOSE). Then he claims that all taxes are coercive? Why? Because if you choose to place yourself in a position that obliges you to pay taxes, you are then obliged to pay them? The choice is yours you are not obliged to place yourself in that situation. Molyneux and you seem to ignore that original factor of free choice

Basically from what I can tell of your position is that you feel you have a right to all the advantages of living in a society and absolutely no obligation to that society. IE you can take whatever you want from society but do not have to pay for it, or in other words you wish to be a thief and claim it is the moral high ground.

Quag · June 23, 2011

gvg,

I have only watched half your video, sorry out of time, try to see the rest later. But as I have a reply that will require me to search over and over again for the info I'll reply to the first half.

Ok he claims original taxes were on the renatal income and implies that all property belongs to the govt, sorry I disagree. probably because I am a landowner. My land is mine not the govts.

He then claims the taxes started in 1918 at 90% few searches all show 1913 as the beginning at 7% jumping up during WWI and reaching 77% in 1918 (not the 90% he claims)

He then makes claims that govt income increased dramatically with increased tax rates. Well I understand you could probably use the years 1913 -1918 to prove the point 7-77% in 5 years with lowest staring over 20k in 1913 and only 4k in 1918 of course revenues went up. Basically you went from almost no taxation to a tax system. After that I cannot find any data to support his views except for 1 chart that seems to go against all the numbers that I can find stating federal income, gdp and tax rates, leading me to discount the graph.

Now during WWII the tax rates increased from a pre war 79% to 1945 94% and economyand the US was the strongest economy after the war. But you have to factor in that of the large economic countries only the US did not have its infrastructure and industrial base bombed or ravaged by war. in fact despite the fact that the us used lend lease etc they also recieved huge amounts of $ for their material from their allies. Lend lease started after it was obvious that Britian could not continue to pay for all it needed. The US was also the last major combattant to enter the war, again less war for the US was anotehr reason it ended the war in a stronger position than it's allies (its a given the losers were in bad shape).

He stated that prosperity and growth incease fastest when income rate sare highest. I cannot find any correlation here. in the 40's the gdp doubled, in the 50s it doubled in th e60's just under 2X, 70s it was 2.5X, 80's 2X, 90's just under 2X, 00's a little under 2X. note i didnt break down tax rates just went by decades but the 70's had a constant tax rate which i think is more important here, people, buisnesses can plan better when there is no fear of rules changing. also note the 70's had a lower rate than the 40's or 50's, during the 60's the rate dropped from 91 to 70

here links to check numbers

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php

I'll try and see rest of video later but so far as he is factually incorrect on several points I do not take him very seriously.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Quag

Quag · June 23, 2011

gvg:

I almost forgot. The video implies that the tax rate is the only factor effecting the economy. This is a simplistic and utterly wrong view. The world economy (ie other countries), the value of the dollar, natural & man made disasters, new technologies, consumer confidence and countless other factors are also involved. I apologize if he deals with these things in the 2nd half of the video, which i haven't seen yet.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Quag

gvg · June 23, 2011

Quag: Yeah I noticed that. I just thought he got it wrong off the top of his head.

By the way, he wants 90%, but that is way too much in my view. I just want like 60-70%. So, I understand that 90% is too much. I agree.

I just think the US's rate is too low. We are not at the constantly talked about 'perfect rate.' It's too low. Even with cuts, i don't think our current taxes bring in enough to do anything. 90%? Obviously too much. But our current 35% is too low. Much too low.

And I don't think the video implied what you say it did, although I see why you may interpret it that way. But I don''t think that's what he meant by it.

http://mondaymorningeconomist.com/wordpress/?p=18 This is another interesting article to read. Now, from what I understood, the author argues that cutting government spending that leaves the country (like in war, etc.) and raising taxes is what we need to do. Now, i don't agree with everything this guy says (he says at one point that we need to tax our way out of it, which implies no cuts. Obviously, this is ridiculous, as we need to cut things like unnecessary military spending, like the wars, and any waste that can be found), but I think it is overall what i mean. (Note: I may be picking horrible articles. I don't know, since unfortunately, we don't learn about economic til 12th grade =))

By the way, I think there are other possibilities for revenue. For instance, legalizing drugs (which would save money on any police funds being put into it, and would allow us to tax it), or giving 'illegal' immigrants work passes (which 1. Saves the money we spend deporting people 2. Puts them under minimum wage laws so that businesses aren't able to higher them for pennies an hour 3. Allows us to tax their income), and especially fixing the tax code (as I've said before, US corporations only pay 14% tax, and some pay none and get rebates. I am willing to lower the rate to 30% (Australia's number) as opposed to 35 if people would start agreeing to fix up the tax code to prevent the current loopholes). As each of these things is implemented, we don't need to raise the income tax as much (for instance, maybe only up to 50%), but until then, i feel it does.

Now, UtF:

1. Uh, saying you would build a fence and what not doesn't really make it seem like you're so charitable. I'm sure you are, but what you said wasn't.

2. Walmart isn't forcing you, your current economic state is forcing you. If you make millions a year, you really can buy from anywhere, but if you only make a few thousands, you really have very few options as to where you can shop. So it's not stores forcing you, it's your economic state.

3. I would hate doing it myself obviously. No one likes the tax collector. (And remember the collector doesn't point the guns, but let's assume I would have to). But knowing that I would be helping people by doing, yes, I would do it.

Quag · June 23, 2011

gvg just quick check, yeah perhaps 35% is too low, not too sure myself i want it as low as possible, but i dont think it should be over 50% Not a number chosen for any other reason than psychological, I admit freely, but I have yet to see any reason it shoudl be over that. I would like to have your 35% but agree that with the current situation in the US, I cannot see how you can get out of it without both raising taxes and cutting spending.

Points

1. yeah gotta do something

2.Yeah the illegal immigrants problem you have is a tough one, both sides seem to have no clue on it. First thing shoudl be reform of how immigrants can enter US legally. What to do with those here and how to keep peopel from entering illegally should be dealt with after. As long as the incentive to enter illegally is so strong and the barriers to entering legally so large you will always have this problem.

3. reforming tax code is a good idea. 70% I no like, the corporations paying 14% when rate is 35% hmm no sound good either, but then I'm not sure where the 14% number you said comes from untill I do I can't comment.

If you haven't noticed by now I like to verify statements, just because someone says X is Y does not make it so. Oddly enough I learned that from studying history not from science. I discovered at some point that some books disagreed on certain points. I then decided to start reading the source material and discovered that often people misinterpreted, deliberately or not (sometimes outright lied) to project their own view. In science I accepted most of what was told me as the math bore it out or experiments could confirm (though often people cheated on the experimental results to get the desired data)

Point in case I just finished Eddie Rickenbackers autobiography (great book) but he claims the P51 was a great plane because of the fantastic US engineering involved particularily in the engine dept. Actually the P51 (designed to a british not US specification FYI) was a dog at first untill the allison engine was replaced with a Rolls Royce Merlin. It then became one of the best fighters of the war. Packard built a liscence copy of the Merlin to place in the planes built over here, not an improved Allison engine as Eddie says. Still a great book on an interesting man.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Quag

gvg · June 23, 2011

Quag: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php This says 17.2% for 2002-2003, which is still hardly near what they're supposed to.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/ This says 2/3 don't pay, but the majority of that is small businesses who switch it to personal income instead of corporate

Here's more about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html

I got that percentage from Bill Maher on his show. This seems to slightly support him: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/164103-report-corporations-pay-low-effective-tax-rates

To be fair, this:http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/Home/40806 and this:http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2011/04/big-corporations-pay-an-average-27.html say otherwise, so i dunno. Let's say 20%. I'm pretty sure it just depends on what groups you do, how many, etc. because certain companies with lower income pay more. But they are not the majority aparantly, considering the 2/3 thing.

gvg · June 23, 2011

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08coccr.pdf A complete list. For instance, it showed that the total income tax for the real estate business was about 2 mil of the 49 mil they made. That's about 4%. I didn't look through all of them, but it gives similar information. (Note: The last available data was 2008).

June 23, 2011

Okay, so apparently Quag thinks I'm a complete hypocrite (although he still hasn't expressly said so) for voluntarily funding things that I consider immoral. What a shame....

Dawh?

Sign In

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members