In other words, sometimes it is ok to steal. And since theft almost always comes with coercion, it is ok to aggress or threaten an innocent person, under particularl social conditions.
Is this correct?
so any tax whatsoever is socialism?
well, we’ve clearly been mixing in different philosophical circles.
p.s. - " is based on subsistence, a minimum standard needed to live."
edit, for liberty student above:
we’re coming in here with the assumption that taxation is theft.
the short version of my generic response to that is that theft is done for the criminal’s benefit; tax pays for society’s benefit (n.b. - I am talking theory here. I am perfectly aware that this does not always happen)
As soon as you can justify one, you can justify them all.
Clearly. While no longer Christian, I was raised one, and the good book says, “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not kill”.
Not, “thou shalt not … except if a majority vote determines it is ok via democracy”
No, collectively (state) owned means of production is socialism. Hence you support socialized provision of charity, amongst other things.
Define a minimum standard needed to live? Very, very few people really live off that in the Western world, people can go quite a while without eating or drinking, so do you advocate us giving food only to those who haven’t eaten or had any water for several days? In which case throwing the poor some scraps of bread and water is sufficient, I’m sure the private sector can manage that.
Now, I know you’ll object to this, why it helps those is absolutely poverty does it not?
I’m going to give you a clue: if it doesn’t work in practise, the theory is flawed.
not at all.
justifying a tax which is used to pay for a vital heart transplant, when the person is otherwise too poor to pay for it himself, and taxing to pay for, say, arts council funding, are entirely different, notably because one directly saves life, and the other does not.
as for the Bible… well.
it also says that God ordered that the Caananites be exterminated, including the women and children.
either way, the state doesn’t kill except when not doing so would be detrimental to the good of the whole. (like I said earlier, I am perfectly aware that sometimes this is impinged, but that is the fault of the people rather than the concept of a state)
edit for ^^^^
no, if we did away with most of the benefit system, and set up a system whereby bread and water were distributed, that would be fine.
and: find me one political theory that works in practice, and I will concede this argument.
oh look, there are none. theories, even libertarianism, will always be flawed in practice because of the actions of immoral people.
You know, there are millions of people out there in the UK and USA who don’t have enough money to eat as well as they could have. Let’s tax ourselves broke to pay for them to eat as healthily as possible (and to visit their local doctor to get information on how to eat healthily), after all it will save lives, won’t it?
If you just want bread and water for the poor the free market can do that. I literally mean a bare minimum by the way. So, do you concede the point?
You know, your criticism might have hit the mark if we’d been talking about utopianism .
underlined for relevance.
in the medium/ long run, people can reprioritise spending pattersn so that if healthy eating is their deisre, they can do that.
the only justifiable tax is one which is used to solve problems which will result in death, and require immediate action.
if the private sector was moral enough to solve them itself, then fine. but it isn’t. waits for abuse
Who determines what is vital? If it is heart transplants and poverty, does that include food, clothes, education and security? Seems pretty broad to me.
Then we have the issue of what is seen and what is not seen. Sure, you try to help someone. But who is the victim, forced to pay for this against their will? A tax, is not charity. Taxes are taken under threat of force. Charity is given out of compassion and goodwill.
Don’t try to portray this as victimless. You are taking from one person to give to another and someone is being aggressed against.
Wow. I’m trying to write something to you that isn’t totally insulting. Because what you wrote is total and complete crap. The greatest killer of civilians in the last 200 years, has been government, not religion, not terrorists, not corporations. GOVERNMENT. Millions of people have been slaughtered by your so-called “good of the whole” argument. Stalin and Mao, George Bush the older and younger. Reagan. Thatcher. Clinton. So many innocent people, murdered in their homes, schools and hospitals. By GOVERNMENT. By bombs that your necessary taxes pay for.
You’re not getting the point. Taxes are not charity. By taxing, you are committing a crime of aggression under the auspices of preventing the non-crime of economic shortfall.
Don’t troll.
Just because man can and does commit evil, doesn’t mean that we should tolerate or strive for a system that is evil.
Are you arguing that no charity would exist in a free society? I know full well I would be giving to charity, and I know of the existence in the past of soup kitchens and friendly societies, and church help for those in (dire or otherwise) need. Islam proscribes that 2.5% of yearly income should go to charity.
Do you really think that the private sector couldn’t deal with these situations any better?
Death is a natural part of the cycle of life, for all living creatures on this planet. The fundamental flaw all statists (including yourself) have, is that they believe by forcing man to do things against his will, they can cheat the natural laws of the universe.
It’s hubris run amuck.
If you were truly moral, you wouldn’t steal to accomplish the social goals you lack the talent and capacity to achieve. Stealing from the productive is a shortcut for people whose hearts want to do good, but whose hands are incapable of creating excess prosperity. Which is why you steal, and you like government, because it provides a “legal” mechanism for you to commit crimes that would be intolerable if you committed them with your own hands.
No, no matter how many of the poorer people in the USA decide to reprioritise their spending patterns, they can’t eat as well as the wealthiest individuals. Hence, sooner or later it will come down to a matter of death, we could have saved these people, just like we could have saved the guy who needed a heart transplate.
Better yet, let’s start paying for massage chairs for people with stress problems (otherwise they might have a heart attack).
Define immediate?
The “private sector” isn’t moral enough to solve the problems itself but it is moral enough to elect people to solve it for them. You do realise that’s what you’re saying, right?
food: yes. clothes: yes if death would otherwise result. education: no. security: no
yes, but the person being taken from has enough that losing enough money to pay for bread and water will not drive them out of house and home. not taking, on the other hand, will result in death.
guess which one I care about more?
Stalin and Mao were what resulted when messing around with Communism allowed people into power who shouldn’t have been there.
those people weren’t murdered by government. they were murdered by the distorted facade that government becomes if people don’t keep it on a leash.
“by bombs that your necessary taxes pay for”
no, what my necessary taxes pay for has already been discussed.
taxes aren’t charity. they are taken “through the barrel of a gun” as thedesolateone reminds me so frequently. but hey. if people would pay up their contribution voluntarily, there would be no need for the gun. but the free market does not, and would not, provide enough for the purposes I have described.
“Don’t troll”
i wasn’t trolling, I was illustrating the point that he (or was it you) cannot criticise a theory for not working, given that no theories work.
“Just because man can and does commit evil, doesn’t mean that we should tolerate or strive for a system that is evil.”
and here’s the rub.
you believe it evil to enforce a system which stops people from dying, because doing so infringes someone else’s rights by a tiny degree.
i believe that the right to life is greater than any other. promoting this right is never evil.
edit^^^(thedesolate one) well, its doing a great job right now, isn’t it?
(liberty student) no, I don’t like government. I don’t like taxes. in my ideal world, neither would exist. but I can recognise that the world isn’t ideal, and in the real world, we sometimes have to put aside our perfect world idealism to do what is required to bring it slightly closer, even if it is paradoxical.
(gilesstratton) “immediate” being within 48 hours. no, solving long run causes of death and short run are different in my book. and yes, i recognise the paradox of taking people from a flawed market and using them to cure said market. they cure the relevant part by having the power to make people not die. and yes, whoever posted above that death is part of the natural cycle is correct, but death by starvation because noone would spare bread and water is not.
Why not 49 hours?
Telec, I’m sure in some simple, naive way you truly mean well.
But when you justify theft, and aggression, which ultimately leads to slavery (jail) or death (armed confrontation) to save life, you are truly a confused and conflicted individual.
The first rule of a moral and just society, has to be “do no harm”. Endorsing a system of theft and violence is the easy way out. It is for cheaters. Rather than finding more efficient ways to spread health care, education, food and such, you endorse just taking it.
This, is wrong.
Taxes never go down. They always go up. Government spending never goes down, it always goes up. Even with all of our technology, the goal isn’t to live to 50, it is to live to 90. One day we will be trying to keep people alive to 150. There is no limit, there is no end. Your goals can never be satisfied, but they will result as they always do in increased tyranny, and supression of individual liberties starting most importantly with a violation of property rights. The ability for a person to own themselves, direct their labour and to keep the fruits of their labour.
I can’t discuss with you anymore. I came to the conclusion months ago that the hard core socialist believers aren’t convertible. As Spideynw said, if you don’t see what is wrong with the system, how much death and pain is caused by government, and you truly believe your salvation lies in voting and politicians, more laws, and more regulation, increased taxes, and less private and voluntary cooperation, then there is nothing that can be done to help you. You have to change, no number of arguments I make will stick, as long as you are a true believer and will sacrifice one man for another, over and over until no one is left.
because 48 is a nice number, chosen completely arbitrarily, by me. if you want 49, go for it. and now you’re going to say “why not 9999999999”
and I’m going to say that that isn’t immediate enough. and you’re about to say “when is immediate enough?” ?
and I’ll say that its a matter of opinion. if you want to stop people from dieing in 999999999 hours, go ahead. i personally choose to use 48. and that’s my prerogative.
And that is just a “might makes right” philosophy. Of course, when I ask you if it is OK that “might makes right”, you will say no. So, you are inconsistent. As such, you support two opposing views. Which means we cannot believe anything you say.
Perhaps it is. But it’s my money, so justify 48 hours.
“if you don’t see what is wrong with the system, how much death and pain is caused by government, and you truly believe your salvation lies in voting and politicians, more laws, and more regulation, increased taxes”
actually I’m with you. come elction time, I won’t be voting. compared to the system we have now, everything needs to be cut back.
just not destroyed.
“will sacrifice one man for another, over and over until no one is left.”
if the question is one of life vs life, then I take no part in it.
either way, like you implied, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
edit^^^(spideynw) not might makes right. just a question of who is making the decision. bush chose to invade iraq. we can fault his choice, but it is he who made the decision, so that is what happening.
i think we could abolish the state. the departments that collect tax/revenue would be first to close.
the government would be able to raise enough funds by a firesale of its property to put aside many bags of grain or whatever cheap subsitence food to distribute over a few months to ween people off welfare. and they’d all know that when the grain ran out, thats it.
hence you can abolish taxation. without starvation.