Originally posted by stephinrazin
Service and rights are very different. Services suggests the providing of something. Rights are those privileges guaranteed by the fact we are alive.
I did not create this definition. It is the result of enlightenment thought from men like Locke and Hume. This definition is the foundation of the
American Republic.(or was)
Have you ever actually
read John Locke or David Hume? I would strongly suggest doing so before you attempt to name-drop. If you
have
read them, then you really shouldn't be citing them; your position doesn't mesh too well with theirs.
Now, your starry-eyed idealism aside, you're missing the point. The service provided is the protection of rights. We've already been here, and you did
say that's what you believe the point of government to be - the protection of rights. That, friend, is a service. And as I'm sure you understand,
services are not free. Ergo, taxes.
The money required for protection of the rights would be agreed upon at the foundation of the government. If that government expands that
taxation beyond what is necessary for the protection of these rights the taxes are unjust.
That wouldn't work, actually. Most nations last a good while longer than the men who originated them, after all. Societies progress and evolve. The
notion of rights continually expand, as well as the people they are applied to. This actually creates an additional need for funding. Progress +
Population growth = More revenue needed. Thankfully the growth is arithmetic and not exponential.
Risk imprisonment in a rape room? I also have the choice to jump off a cliff, but that does not mean I should do it. I am forced by threat of
violence.
You know, there's a point where "ignorance" crosses the Rubicon, has all the dust washed off, and is revealed to have been "stupidity" all along.
How's the water?
For what feels like the hundredth time, you are free to leave. You are free to divorce yourself from the grid. No thugs are going to grab you and
force you to have property and income. They're not going to drag you kicking and screaming out of your Dominican tax haven and force you to churn out
dollars in Rhode Island.
it does not work that way.
For the hundred and
first time, your problem is not that you do not have options. Your problem is not the "threat of violence." Your problem is
that you want all the benefits of a system paid for by taxes, without ever paying one red cent yourself - I.e., you're a thief. Not just any thief,
you're a lazy one.
What do I indulge in? The roads. The police, The fire fighter. All paid for by local property taxes. What do I get from income tax? Inheritance
tax? Capital Gains tax? Medicare/Medicaid/social security taxes?(They will all be bankrupt before I retire) Whatever so called benefits this state
provides pales in comparison to the amount taken.
Your local property taxes are
still taxes, you know. And I find it ironic that you're giving a bitch and moan about the state of Social
Security and Medicare/aid.. .while also screaming about paying taxes. Didn't I already
explain the cause of deteriorating service vs. rising
cost? I'm giving you a free education here, buckaroo, might want to saddle up.
Now, here's what you're missing. You, personally, may not be a direct beneficiary of a given program or service. Like most anti-tax crusaders, you
then dismiss that particular program or service as "waste." The thing is, though, you are not the only person in existence (shocking, I know!) You are
part of a greater organism, an entire society. You, personally, probably don't benefit from WIC coupons, for instance ("waste!" I hear you shout to
the heavens.) But
someone does. Some mom and her kid have food - food that I'm absolutely certain you weren't about to donate (odds are you
didn't even know this mother and child existed, don't feel too bad). This is a mother who is demonstrably less likely to engage in something illegal
to make ends meet. it's a kid who will be fed and, one hopes, healthy, rather than a malnourished waif causing hospital costs to go up. With the WIC
option, she has that much less stress, and is that much more able to be a decent mother, or a capable employee, or whatever the hell she;s doing.
These effects do come back to benefit you, if only marginally.
That which betters society as a whole benefits the individuals within that society.
What? No matter how many people pay in they are all paying more by dealing with a middle party. If every person buys a shirt they all pay more
my sending the money through DC. I don't really understand your thinking.
I know you don't understand my thinking. This seems to be a recurrent problem. The thing here is, not everyone paying into the system is
utilizing the system. If everyone who paid in also bought out, then yes, the system would collapse, for the exact reason you described.
The idea is philosophical. The state holds the threat of violence over your head in order to get taxation. You personally may not experience
it, but the threat is there. Still, someone does receive the violence of the state whether you do or not.
Yes, the idea is philosophical. So is the question, "do you see the same red that I see?" and "Do trees dream?" and of course, the debate over exactly
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Ideally, philosophy is a tool to awaken the mind as to how to ask questions and seek answers. All too
often though it becomes a goal unto itself; that is, philosophy can become nothing more than useless mental masturbation. Such is the case here, with
your argument. You may be making a philosophical point, but that point is useless for real-world application. Let's try anyway,and see what we come up
with.
Taxation is theft, therefore violence. So those who pay taxes are being oppresed by statist violence. A reasonable assumption from this situation is
that those who pay the largest sums in taxes will be the most oppressed members of this violence-based system, since, logically, they are the ones
being pummeled the hardest for their lunch money by the state. So we look at those who pay the largest sums in taxes - the wealthy and upper classes.
Surely they are brutalized, broken bunch?
No, in fact, they are the
freest sector of our society. Their wealth grants them more access to their government, it ensures greater security
in their health and persons and property, all of which they have more of. The wealthier portions of the society - those who are squeezed the most for
taxes - enjoy the highest rate of education, the highest rate of meaningful and secure employment, and the best chances of actually retiring with the
ability to enjoy their elder years. They and their children live longer, live better, travel more, and are far better-able to ensure the livelihoods
of their descendants to come.
Well, okay, those paying the heaviest taxes might not be doing too badly. But how about those who pay the least? Surely,
surely these people,
who have the least violence perpetrated against them by hte state - those who, as you have put it, are the beneficiaries of that violence, surely
they must be even better-off?
Well, no. The least-taxed sectors of our society are, by and large, the poorest and most destitute. They have poor health, often have lackluster
educations, a great many don't even have meaningful shelter. Their children are hungry and often suffer from the desperation and stress of their
parents, which unfortunately frequently manifests in addictive diseases such as alcoholism. Most work low-paying jobs that they find little or no
personal satisfaction in, and an ever-increasing number are held in debt while their costs keep going higher and their wages stay static. They have
almost no access to their government, and what little they have is actually held by charitable people from the higher classes. They often leave
nothing to bequeath to their future generations, which only helps ensure the generational nature of this state.
Your philosophy, when applied to
reality goes completely backwards. Your philosophy says that those with the most freedom are the most grossly
oppressed, while those with the least are freest of all. By your philosophy, Sweden is a failed, degenerate state that needs to be held in contempt
for its gross violence and negligence, while Somalia is a shining city on the hill, a beacon to all who seek freedom. Up is down, red is green, and
squirrels are canteloupes!
The state seized my money outside of its rights. It used this money to make roads. How can I steal what was stolen from me?
Actually the contract you are living under allows for taxation for the public good. It's in the Constitution. Once again, I should point out you have
total freedom to emigrate (a freedom that isn't shared by those who can't afford it as you can, I might add)
As for how you can steal it... think of it this way. I have a World of Warcraft account. it costs me $14 a month, and I have it set to recurrent every
month. Thing is, I don't play it very often anymore. I think last time I signed in was in mid-June, in fact. Am I being stolen from? Certainly not.
I'm not currently using the service, but I pay to ensure that it's still there if I decide I want to use it, say, in 20 minutes. meanwhile my money is
going towards server costs, content development, staff pay, and all sorts of stuff the many, many, many other players in the game are gaining benefit
from right now. Is Blizzard threatening me with violence? Nope, I'm under the understanding that if I do not pay, my account will be closed and I
cannot access the service until I put money into it again. This is not violence, it's a contractual agreement. Now, if I were to do like some others,
and find some way to scam the system so that I can play without paying, is that theft? even though i've already paid lots of money into the game that
i didn't directly gain from? Yes, it is still theft.
That is a pretty blanket statement. I think that is a pretty hard argument to back up. That every time a government cuts taxes or spending they
move toward dictatorship.
Not every time, and I realized i had unintentionally implied so after the edit time had expired. Sorry. No, there are regular ups and downs to both
taxation and spending, organic fluctuations according to the needs of the society.
However, it
is the fast track method. You want a dictatorship lickety-split? Slash taxes and radically defund the services provided to the
society. Boom, dictatorship in under a month. Allow me to use your example to give you an example.
I would argue the opposite. The more money the state taxes and spends the greater the move toward dictatorship. I strongly recommend a
Road to Serfdom(Abridged). This Austrian witnessed the
rise of Nazism, and knows a fair more then we do about the danger of state of power.
Oh, I know all about Hayek. Some things you probably either don't, or have conveniently glossed over. Hayek's philosophies actually are the core and
cornerstone of many of the grossest violations against human rights in the latter 20th century, and are the founding philosophy of dictators from
Indonesia's Suharto to Chile's Pinochet to Russia's Yeltsin. Granted, most of these were passed secondhandedly via Hayek's student, Milton Friedman,
and
his students in Chicago, but the political and economic philosophies were relatively unadulterated. One could almost think that his
Road
to Serfdom was taken to be a user's guide - And Hayek lived to see it all done in his name, without ever voicing any contention to it. In fact he
praised Pinochet, saying that he'd rather there be a dictator that forced Hayek's economic vision on the people rather than a democracy that
didn't.
So, the tl;dr version? Stick Hayek in your ear, he's an even creepier hypocrite than you.
I will agree the military is the last thing to be cut. The situation that allowed for the military to have such influence is the denial of the
dangers of increased state power. Without years of entrenched state power through oppressive taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy dictatorships could
not come to power.
So you're saying that Norway is bound to become a ruthless military dictatorship any day now, because of its high taxes, large bureaucracy, and strong
regulations? I suppose then that all this talk of armed anarchy in tax-free, regulation-free, bureaucracy-free Somalia is just a lie from the liberal
media? I suppose of military dictatorships erupting from nascent states that had not had time to establish any real taxes, regulations, or bureaucracy
(say, Pakistan) are all make-believe, while all the states that emerged with large taxes, strong regulations, and standing bureaucracy are all, at
heart, Hitlers waiting to happen (like, uh, Canada).
And before you troth them out, both Hitler and Stalin emerged out of failed states that had shredded their own social contracts; Germany because the
allied victory in World War I forced them to do so, Russia because the Tzars were, well, Tzars.
Your philosophy requires you to say these stupid and factually incorrect things, much as a religious fundamentalist is compelled to say that women
were made from man's rib. In both cases, it's the philosophy that needs to be discarded, and the reality of the situation observed and
embraced.
edit on 9/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)
) 