If it were clear that the government (and taxes) is evil, then most Americans would work to dismantle it.
It's obviously not clear because we're having this conversation.

I find it interesting that to you the fact that they are necessary is debatable, but the fact that they are evil is not.

Quote :

"So we should examine each law and determine whether society can exist without it. If so, we should eliminate it."

This is interesting to me. By examining a law that benefits someone and choosing to remove it, would you not then be negatively affecting that person against their will?

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2010 1:59:16 PM

What about "if they are in fact evil (which I think is clear)" makes it seem that I think it is not debatable?

It comes down to natural rights. If you believe that humans are autonomous beings with certain natural rights, any government must necessarily infringe on those rights to exist (which would make it inherently immoral). If you do not believe that, then what rights would you claim humans do have?

Quote :

"By examining a law that benefits someone and choosing to remove it, would you not then be negatively affecting that person against their will?"

If someone steals money from you, and you take it back, are you negatively affecting that person against their will? I suppose so, but it was not theirs rightfully to begin with. Going back to the slavery example, freeing the slaves could be said to have negatively affected the slave owners against their wills, but they should never have been in that position in the first place.

Whether an action negatively or positively affects others is not the issue. The issue is whether it is right for an individual or collective group to force others to act against their wills.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 2:20 PM. Reason : ^]

3/10/2010 2:03:37 PM

Quote :

"must necessarily infringe on those rights to exist (which would make it inherently immoral"

The social contract is not inherently immoral.

The fact that you're also calling self defense immoral indicates to me that we're arguing semantics.


Killing is generally immoral, except under certain circumstances. Taking property is generally bad, except under certain circumstances;a democratic nation taxing its people, for instance.

When is slavery ever moral?

3/10/2010 3:40:54 PM

a wise man will avoid philosophical discussions with those that ground their arguments on "natural rights". At least, that is, until that person can offer a compelling reason for how those natural rights are derived and why they must be respected.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ``]

3/10/2010 3:44:14 PM

^^

Quote :

"Defense is not immoral. We have the right to protect ourselves against aggression."

The concept of social contract in America is illegitimate. Why should I be held accountable to some contract that I have not agreed to? Simply because I happen to live here? What gives the government the right to claim this territory and require that anyone who lives here abide by this contract?


^
What alternative system of rights do you claim exist and why? Natural rights stem from the nature of man and how we relate to each other. If men are not autonomous then there must be some reason that other people have the right to control those whom they control.

3/10/2010 3:58:31 PM

hi

"the government" enjoys the benefit of "authority"

which in your freshman sociology class you will learn

is defined as "legitimized power"

where "power" specifically refers to doing harm to you

even to the point of killing you

3/10/2010 4:05:22 PM

i have no alternative system of rights because i do not believe they exist as objective guides to moral conduct.

you say that rights "stem from the nature of man". okay, can we maybe narrow that down a bit? what is about humans that give them these special attributes called "rights"?

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ``]

3/10/2010 4:09:22 PM

i swear to god if you people turn this into a religion thread

3/10/2010 4:10:47 PM

If there are no rights, there is no morality and no such thing as injustice. In this case, why have any laws at all?

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 4:18:55 PM

non sequitur

3/10/2010 4:20:15 PM

No one likes paying taxes, but unless you are so pro-welfare that you expect free roads, free education, free food and drug safety, free national defense, free police protection, free fire protection, free Pell grants to help you attend a public university, and a nice layer of salt on the roads before a snow, then stop throwing around words like evil. You use these services all year long and then whine and complain when you have to pay for them just “because I happen to live here.”

Maybe you can make a compelling case that you're paying too much in taxes, but when you act like it is some great injustice that taxes even exist then it just comes across as whining. You can go live in the woods somewhere if you want, but society is pay 2 play, always has been, always will be.

3/10/2010 4:25:44 PM

^^I'd say it is the fact that we have the ability to reason, and that the actions we decide to take have consequences that indicates that we must have rights. If we are held responsible for our actions (by society or by nature), then we should be allowed to decide on those actions independently.

^ What does any of that have to do with taxation being immoral? I think we've already moved past the part of the discussion where you list all of the good things taxes provide and say why they're necessary.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ^]

3/10/2010 4:26:41 PM

yikes. we make decisions that have consequences and therefore we have rights? i would love to see that chain of reasoning rolled out in detail.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ``]

3/10/2010 4:40:32 PM

Quote :

"^ What does any of that have to do with taxation being immoral? I think we've already moved past the part of the discussion where you list all of the good things taxes provide and say why they're necessary."

What is your morality based on? Obviously not happiness and results.

3/10/2010 4:41:48 PM

^^ If we must live out the consequences for the decisions we make, should we not be able to make those decisions on our own? If I decide to cut my leg off, I will have to deal with that decision the rest of my life. No one else should be able to make that decision for me, because I am the one who has to deal with the consequence. If we say that no one else can make that decision for me, that means I have a right to make that decision on my own.

3/10/2010 4:46:51 PM

To me, the issue of rights comes down to self-ownership. Do we have right the behave how we want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else? Or do we only have the rights granted to us by elected officials?

3/10/2010 4:55:03 PM

Quote :

"^^ If we must live out the consequences for the decisions we make, should we not be able to make those decisions on our own? If I decide to cut my leg off, I will have to deal with that decision the rest of my life. No one else should be able to make that decision for me, because I am the one who has to deal with the consequence. If we say that no one else can make that decision for me, that means I have a right to make that decision on my own."

you are trying to show that rights exist by appealing to a new, but apparently different moral principal that people should be able to have control over the decisions that affect them? This, at best, pushes the question back a step. Why do you think no one else "should" make decisions for you where you bear the majority of the consequences of those decisions???

I am really worried you are heading for circular reasoning territory. "Why do people have rights? Because they should be able to have control over their decisions that impact them. Why should they have this control? Because it is their right. Why do people have right? etc etc etc"

Or worse..."what do you mean why? isn't it self-evident!?"

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 4:59 PM. Reason : Locke, Jefferson, Rand, Rothbard -- all bonkers]

3/10/2010 4:57:14 PM

Quote :

"To me, the issue of rights comes down to self-ownership. Do we have right the behave how we want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else? Or do we only have the rights granted to us by elected officials?"

It sounds simple until you think about it for a few minutes. David Friedman has the best take down of these types of simplistic foundations for libertarianism:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

PS* And Friedman is attacking these arguments as a libertarian himself. An anarcho-capitalist at that. Its hard to get more libertarian than DF. Yet he still finds these types of arguments to be bonkers. I don't disagree.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ``]

3/10/2010 5:04:13 PM

It is simply the most reasonable approach. If the individual cannot make his own decisions regarding his own life, then who should? Natural rights is really just a rejection of rights. Saying that I have the right to decide whether to cut off my leg is really just saying that no one else has that right. By rejecting natural rights what you are claiming is that other people do have that right. So if you reject all rights, then how can you claim that they have that right? And from where does that right derive?

3/10/2010 5:08:21 PM

The plane can still take off.

3/10/2010 5:11:04 PM

good grief ghot, if you are going to blatantly crib Ayn Rand at least say so upfront.

Quote :

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."

- Galt's Speech Atlas Shrugged

The problem is you and Rand are both jumping a few key links in your chain of reasoning. Namely, you are not actually explaining where rights come from. Let's continue with one of your examples. Say I cut off your leg. *SNAP* I just did it. You claim that what I did was "wrong". *Why*?

You seem to think its because I violated some right that you have. But when I swung my axe through the air the only thing it touched was skin and bone. I have never seen a "right".

PS* Please note that Rand's argument is a bit more sophisticated (though still fundamentally wrong) than the one you are laying out here. You might want to go re-read her stuff b4 u continue to make sure you got it all in line.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 5:28 PM. Reason : ``]

3/10/2010 5:23:31 PM

Quote :

"No one else should be able to make that decision for me, because I am the one who has to deal with the consequence."

There are VERY few decisions you make that don't affect other people in some way, either directly or indirectly.

No man is an island, etc., etc.

3/10/2010 5:27:53 PM

^^ Sorry, but I've never read anything by Rand. I like the quote though.

It is wrong simply because now I have no leg (which most people would consider a negative) and I must suffer that consequence. How can anyone claim that it is not wrong for me to unwillingly suffer the consequences of your actions? You seriously contend that there is nothing wrong with that? Most people understand innately that there is right and wrong. If you do not, I believe that is referred to as psychopathy.


^ I'd agree with that. And I would claim that those actions are either moral or immoral. I'm not the one claiming there is no such thing as rights or morality.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ^]

3/10/2010 5:31:57 PM

Quote :

"The problem is you and Rand are both jumping a few key links in your chain of reasoning. Namely, you are not actually explaining where rights come from. Let's continue with one of your examples. Say I cut off your leg. *SNAP* I just did it. You claim that what I did was "wrong". *Why*? "

Why does this need to be explained? Rights are a concept. You have not seen a right and you will never see a right. That's why we're trying to pinpoint what rights people have. The human mind came up with the concept, so that's where it came from.

3/10/2010 5:34:33 PM

Quote :

"It is wrong simply because now I have no leg (which most people would consider a negative) and I must suffer that consequence. How can anyone claim that it is not wrong for me to unwillingly suffer the consequences of your actions? You seriously contend that there is nothing wrong with that? Most people understand innately that there is right and wrong. If you do not, I believe that is referred to as psychopathy."

Then I am not sure why you even need the concept of "rights". They do nothing but stand in for what you believe are self-evident moral judgements.

Of course, these judgement can't be too self-evident because not everyone seems to agree with you about what they are. And there is really no way to try and convince them that you are right because your argument isn't based on anything except what *you* think is "self-evident".

This is why I said that it would be worse if your argument rested on the idea that your conclusions are self-evident. Because now there is really nothing you can do to convince Boone or anyone else that your arguments are correct except to say "no, really, its self-evident, think about it again!".

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 6:03 PM. Reason : ``]

3/10/2010 5:52:54 PM

Well you have to start with some basis for morality, or what's the point in even setting up a government in the first place? There must be some consensus on right and wrong. The basis of our current government is natural rights, and fortunately, most people do agree with me when I say that no one else has the right to cut off my leg.

So my argument still stands for anyone who subscribes to natural rights or anyone who believes that it is wrong to make people suffer the consequences of other peoples' actions. If you take the stance that there are no rights, and no objective morality, then there is no basis for any law at all. In that case, I can't see how it matters what society looks like.

3/10/2010 6:14:56 PM

Way to fight sophistry with sophistry you two!

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 6:22:32 PM

I wouldn't even approach it by way of rights, I'd merely bring up how their system really only explains the rights to the labor a man produces while being completely ignorant that labor is worthless without capital. I say, OK, you have the rights to anything you make, but what right do you have to steal capital that you had no hand in ever creating? Any product you can find of worth is in some way composed of capital that you had no part in. The fact is that you you resort to the same force to steal capital from others who have just as much right to it while at the same time complaining about how the government does the same thing to only a fraction of your labor.

3/10/2010 6:54:36 PM

Quote :

"Yes. The proposal was quite simple: elimination of the existing income tax code. At that point, everyone would pay taxes under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which does not recognize most tax deductions. The tax rate of the AMT would need to be raised so the books balance, and it still recognizes too many deductions, but the principle is similar. "

So in other words, you don't have a plan at all? I asked you how we get from what we have now to where you Libertarianuts want to be and all you said was all you always say...just eliminate government, what's the worst that could happen? No phasing in of anything, no dates planned far in advance, just blind, half cooked ideas without any thoughts of their repercussion. If there is anything recent economic history has taught us, it's that we have no clue about economics at all and guys like you are part of the problem.

3/10/2010 7:03:49 PM

^ I have thought of the repercussions. They are quite manageable. Widespread unemployment among the governing class. Human efforts diverted away from the political system and towards the economic system. A less corrupt Congress (both literal and appearance). A more satisfactory democratic process. It is the case that money has corrupted politics, the solution of which is to reduce the scope of politics in the economy. All in all, it seems to me that society would function better with a smaller government. And keep in mind, a smaller federal government does not produce any ungoverned spaces: we still have state governments with the constitutional right to regulate everything that moves, doesn't move, and other.

What repercussion are you thinking of that I have not?

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/10/2010 8:23:53 PM

Quote :

"All in all, it seems to me that society would function better with a smaller government."

Shrinking the federal gov. will only grow the size of state gov. which are generally more incompetent than the federal gov. Then people will swing back towards wanting a stronger federal gov.

Not to mention that state gov. are so dependent on federal spending, it would be difficult to cut the size of the gov. without pissing off most people.



[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 8:30 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 8:30:16 PM

well the largest I could think of is the damage it would do to the worldwide economy as the go-to economy for stability and and the one responsible for a large amount of reserve currency suddenly undertook such a risky restructuring. Hell the whole world's economy was blasted into submission when only our housing market took a stumble.

3/10/2010 8:31:55 PM

Quote :

"I have thought of the repercussions. They are quite manageable. Widespread unemployment among the governing class"

hahahahah the governing class (whatever the hell that is)? pass the pipe buddy. if the federal government stops paying out on contracts/stops granting contracts the widespread employment would hit every class of employment you can come up with...and it would obviously be exponentially worse than the levels of unemployment we're experiencing now.

^ quiet with your logic. crazies don't understand logic; they only understand PASSION.


I truly wish this was a discussion about *how* to shrink the federal government, and not the crazy ass idea of eliminating all taxes. it would be more enjoyable to everyone (except the crazies). I'd like to think they're trolling but their "passion" tells otherwise.

3/10/2010 8:42:46 PM

Quote :

"The fact is that you you resort to the same force to steal capital from others who have just as much right to it while at the same time complaining about how the government does the same thing to only a fraction of your labor."

As long as everyone is producing and trading voluntarily, no one is being stolen from.

I'm not advocating eliminating all taxes. At least not any time soon. I'm just proposing we recognize taxes for what they are (coercion), and as such, we strive to eliminate as much as possible. Maybe eventually (decades if not centuries) we would be to a point where it would be possible to eliminate all taxes, but that's definitely not a short-term goal.

So really it is a discussion on how to shrink the government. If more people would recognize taxes and the government in general as immoral, hopefully they would decide we need less of it.

3/10/2010 9:03:22 PM

Quote :

" I truly wish this was a discussion about *how* to shrink the federal government, and not the crazy ass idea of eliminating all taxes."

Exactly, I ask for a plan and all he offered was something that would lead to some form of anarchy with no idea of how the world would look after the fact. Just platitudes about less corruption and things automagically being better with smaller government. I think at my core, I want to believe that society would function in some fashion with this drastically reduced government but it's just brain dead stupid to think we can wave our hand and it will happen and work. It's also brain dead stupid to think one form of corruption won't be replaced with another form of corruption.

Quote :

"I'm just proposing we recognize taxes for what they are (coercion), and as such, we strive to eliminate as much as possible."

How about no? Taxes are the outgrowth of a populace from top to bottom that is too placated to care what their government proposes. That it naturally has to be paid for by some means isn't coercion, it's just completing the process that we are allowing to be wrought on ourselves. If you really think your money is being coerced, feel free to go anywhere else in the world where taxes don't exist.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 9:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2010 9:33:11 PM

Quote :

"if the federal government stops paying out on contracts/stops granting contracts the widespread employment would hit every class of employment you can come up with...and it would obviously be exponentially worse than the levels of unemployment we're experiencing now."

Maybe I missed it, but where did we decide that "everyone pays AMT" == "the federal government stops paying out on contracts"?

3/10/2010 9:35:36 PM

Does anyone accept phasing out Medicare and Social Security as a possible plan? How about bring all troops home and auction off all of our bases? How about cut off all foreign aid? That's what needs to be done. Then, once we prove that we're serious about cutting spending, we can probably do a restructuring of the debt and only pay China back 80-90% of what we owe them. I'm sure they'd rather have that than for us to print the difference.

Spending needs to be cut drastically. I don't see how anyone can deny that. It's not going to happen, though. The politicians will keep this gravy train going as long as it keeps them in office, which is why we're past the point of no return. Both parties will support said gravy train. No one wants to be the Grinch here, but if no one steps up to the plate, we're fucked.

3/10/2010 9:41:46 PM

Quote :

"That it naturally has to be paid for by some means isn't coercion, it's just completing the process that we are allowing to be wrought on ourselves."

Yes, it is:

co·er·cion
–noun
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

How exactly does taxation not fall under this category?

Quote :

"If you really think your money is being coerced, feel free to go anywhere else in the world where taxes don't exist. "

So instead of trying to improve the society that I live in, I have to leave?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 9:53 PM. Reason : link]

3/10/2010 9:48:20 PM

Quote :

"So instead of trying to improve the society that I live in, I have to leave?"

The Libertarians have yet to prove how society will be improved. I wonder, after 200 years of trying this democracy thing, why this improved society never evolved. Did we all not collectively vote over the centuries and Libertarianism failed epically?

Quote :

"co·er·cion –noun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. 2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force."

But I'm not being coerced. I've agreed to the social contract and I am ok with my taxation levels as evidence of this thread, they are in fact quite low. I get a lot for my monies. If I don't like this, I'm certain I can move to some other place on the planet and attempt to make a new life for myself, this much is certain.

3/10/2010 10:11:13 PM

If someone does not agree with a proposed tax, it can be passed against their will. They are still held to it by threat of force. This is coercion by definition. You can try to pass it off as legitimate using social contract theory, but that's a sham. Robert Paul Wolff did a good job of explaining how we are not really represented by our representative democracy in his In Defense of Anarchism. Taxation certainly is coercion and immoral. Attempts to claim otherwise come up short.

3/10/2010 10:22:18 PM

Quote :

"Well you have to start with some basis for morality, or what's the point in even setting up a government in the first place? There must be some consensus on right and wrong. The basis of our current government is natural rights, and fortunately, most people do agree with me when I say that no one else has the right to cut off my leg. So my argument still stands for anyone who subscribes to natural rights or anyone who believes that it is wrong to make people suffer the consequences of other peoples' actions. If you take the stance that there are no rights, and no objective morality, then there is no basis for any law at all. In that case, I can't see how it matters what society looks like."

Saying we need to have some basis for morality doesn't mean any basis will do. Natural rights are simply not a good ground for basis morality for reasons I described as well as reasons outlined by David Friedman in the link I posed above.

If you really think we can't do better than natural rights then you simply aren't looking hard enough. If you really have not read any Rand, thats probably good evidence you need to expand your reading list as you are just making very crude versions of her own flawed arguments.

That's all i got! I'm out!

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ``]

3/10/2010 10:24:31 PM

Quote :

"How exactly does taxation not fall under this category?"

Under that same definition, how is ownership of anything not coercion? If I set up a tent on some property you say you own, how do you force me to move? The government is essentially using the same technique that anyone else would use to get back something they were owed. Why do you try to demonize it when the government does it?

3/10/2010 10:27:55 PM

^ We're not talking about using coercion as defense. We're talking about initiating coercion, unprovoked. In your circumstances, you are talking about using coercion to defend your right to property. That's a completely different situation.

^^ I have yet to see you suggest a better theory. What would you propose we use as a basis for morality? Subjective opinion? That's no real basis at all.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ^^]

3/10/2010 10:28:07 PM

ok, let's say I refuse to pay any of my bills, how are they going to get their money?

3/10/2010 10:35:08 PM

How is who going to get their money? Assuming you have some kind of contract, the terms for breach of contract should be laid out before signing. If you agreed to pay and don't, they would be justified in using coercion to receive their payment.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 10:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2010 10:38:40 PM

Nice dodge, but they're going to get the government to take your money and give it to them, just like how the government will take it's tax money. Taxes are laid out in a contract as well, it's called being a US citizen.

3/10/2010 10:40:32 PM

And as I said, coercion in that instance would be justified. It doesn't matter if they do it themselves or they have some other party take action on their behalf, whether it be government or whoever.

Taxes paid to the US Government were not a part of any contract I have ever signed or agreed to.

3/10/2010 10:43:36 PM

So is this where you say if you think a law is unjust then you aren't bound by it?

I'm not sure how in any sufficiently large society there won't be some minority that feels coerced about something. Your flavor of feeling coerced is different from mine.

3/10/2010 10:50:02 PM

My point is that the ideal is that no one is coerced by anybody. Thus, the "completely voluntary society" thing I've been mentioning. I'm saying that should be what we work toward by reducing the amount of coercion wherever possible and refusing to add any more.

3/10/2010 10:54:08 PM

Quote :

"And as I said, coercion in that instance would be justified."

So now it's whether it's justified or not? So then your argument here is more that taxes "aren't justified" rather than it being about "coercion"?

Quote :

"My point is that the ideal is that no one is coerced by anybody."

Well that is a shitty and stupid point. It is ideal that no one would die and everyone could live together all happy and shit, but that's not reality, so who gives a shit?

Quote :

"I'm saying that should be what we work toward by reducing the amount of coercion wherever possible and refusing to add any more."

So then you liked Obama's credit card stuff right? I mean that goes a little way towards helping people who didn't think being coerced by credit card companies was justified. Why don't you admit that you don't give a shit about "coercion" and just admit that you don't like the US government's tax system? Oh yeah, that kind of talk isn't as tea-party sexy.

3/10/2010 11:13:54 PM