04 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWow, aint that benevolent of you. You best be careful not to let that inflated ego of yours get any bigger, or poop is gonna come out your ears.
Mr. Fist, this is hardly my claim. My claim is that [b]forcing people, via threat of imprisonment for not paying taxes, to feed, house and cure the poor is an unjust ideology.
I myself have been known to help those less fortunate. But I have never embarassed myself by stooping to the level of forcing others to help them.[/b]
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by kirksey957This is related as it seems to me to be government's attempt to be Superman.
Can we talk about a minimum wage? There seems to be a lot of interest from time to time of the minimum wage increasing. So if it would help "poor" people, what is a fair minimum wage?
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo, by this standard, forcing them to pay taxes to fund the military, science, arts, garbage collection, road repair, border security, water purification, policing, firefighting and so on is also unjust? This borders on anarchy. Are you an anarchist, Scribbles?
My claim is that [b]forcing people, via threat of imprisonment for not paying taxes, to feed, house and cure the poor is an unjust ideology.[/b]
04 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by David CThat's correct that all compulsory taxation and associated redistribution is unjust. I have been called an anarchist before, but I am not one. I believe that just governments can and should exist. They are those that don't initiate force against their citizens.
So, by this standard, [b]forcing them to pay taxes to fund the military, science, arts, garbage collection, road repair, border security, water purification, policing, firefighting and so on is also unjust? This borders on anarchy. Are you an anarchist, Scribbles?[/b]
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesExactly what form would this "just" government of yours take? How would they raise any revenue to accomplish anything?
That's correct that all compulsory taxation and associated redistribution is unjust. I have been called an anarchist before, but I am not one. I believe that just governments can and should exist. They are those that don't initiate force against their citizens.
04 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettbribes from corporations , probably.
Exactly what form would this "just" government of yours take? How would they raise any revenue to accomplish anything?
btw corporations don't go to jail for avoiding taxes. and shareholders are exempt from criminal liability anyway.
04 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettVoluntary taxation, of course.
Exactly what form would this "just" government of yours take? How would they raise any revenue to accomplish anything?
What could make more sense? If some people want to pay to feed the poor, let them pay to feed the poor. But don't imprison those who don't want to help.
And there's really not that much that a government needs to accomplish. You're putting the cart before the horse with such a question.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm not talking about feeding the poor. I'm talking about things like national defense, for example. Do you advocate voluntary taxation as the sole means for funding that? In your country, does everyone get to decide where their tax dollars will go?
Voluntary taxation, of course.
What could make more sense? If some people want to pay to feed the poor, let them pay to feed the poor. But don't imprison those who don't want to help.
And there's really not that much that a government needs to accomplish. You're putting the cart before the horse with such a question.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by rwingettYes, if the populous wants a military, allow them to pay for a military.
Do you advocate voluntary taxation as the sole means for funding that? In your country, does everyone get to decide where their tax dollars will go?
In my country, each citizen decides where his money goes. Much like at my supermarket where each customer decides where his money goes.
If K-Mart can implement such a system, it's not that much of a stretch to believe that a government can.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat if someone decided not to pay any taxes at all. The thought being, "Let someone else pay for it. Why should I?" They then sit back and enjoy the benefits of a defense funded by other citizens without contributing to it at all.
Yes, if the populous wants a military, allow them to pay for a military.
In my country, each citizen decides where his money goes. Much like at my supermarket where each customer decides where his money goes.
If K-Mart can implement such a system, it's not that much of a stretch to believe that a government can.
04 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI don't understand what the question is.
What if someone decided not to pay any taxes at all. The thought being, "Let someone else pay for it. Why should I?" They then sit back and enjoy the benefits of a defense funded by other citizens without contributing to it at all.
Is it possible for such a thing to happen? In some instances, I suppose such gamesmanship might be unpreventable.
Would such gamesmen corrupt the entire system? I don't think so. Take the military leech, for example. Everybody pitches in for the planes but him. Then his neighbor, seeing the leech doesn't pay, himself decides to stop paying. As this spreads, the military weakens. But it won't weaken past the point at which it becomes ineffective, for there is an equilibrium there - the last guy to try to pull out has a negative marginal benefit of pulling out, since he saves his own money, but loses all the military protection. This voluntary system, as you see, has the additional benefit of being the most efficient - no extra money is wasted on the military effort.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's the same argument that is constantly used against socialism, except in reverse.
I don't understand what the question is.
Is it possible for such a thing to happen? In some instances, I suppose such gamesmanship might be unpreventable.
Would such gamesmen corrupt the entire system? I don't think so. Take the military leech, for example. Everybody pitches in for the planes but him. Then his neighbor, seeing the leech ...[text shortened]... dditional benefit of being the most efficient - no extra money is wasted on the military effort.
Someone observes that all their needs are met, so why should they work? (At least that's what happens according to capitalists). He benefits from the system but contributes nothing. Then his neighbor, seeing the leech doesn't work, himself decides to stop working. As this spreads, the economy weakens. But it won't weaken past the point at which it becomes ineffective, for there is an equilibrium there - the last guy to try to pull out has a negative marginal benefit of pulling out, since he saves his own labor, but loses all the economic benefits.
04 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI don't make that argument against socialism.
It's the same argument that is constantly used against socialism, except in reverse.
Someone observes that all their needs are met, so why should they work? (At least that's what happens according to capitalists). He benefits from th ...[text shortened]... since he saves his own labor, but loses all the economic benefits.
It's not even an argument against socialism. It's a defense against the claim that under socialism, everybody will take up laziness as a profession. It's a valid defense against that false claim. I don't claim that everybody becomes lazy under socialism. I don't claim that a socialist economy is a vanishing one.