Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[JimC]

So, please describe to me what the middle ground is between "what's mine is mine" and "what's mine is yours."

Either my property is mine and you don't get to take it or it's not mine and you do.

You haven't heard of government then?
There is one in most countries. People seem to like it.
But they get one, whether they like it or not.

And the reality of government is that it can take whatever it decides to. Even your own body, (for national service etc.) or your children. So your property is yours, so long as the government wants, and not a minute longer.

What you call "your property" is just what the government allows you to have.

Somewhat over the top, this. There are legal defences against excessive government interference in ones private life and financial arrangements in most democracies, as there should be...

However, in terms of Seth's point; all taxation, when considered dispassionately, involves taking from a variety of people, and giving to others, including government officials, soldiers, police and firemen, to give only a few examples. There is always room for debate as to whether the taxation level is excessive, or whether the recipients of the tax are deserving or not. The compromise, the middle ground that Seth so abhors is, in the end, a position that an electorate can accept. Political parties compete (and you love competition, don't you Seth?), and the parties that are the least distrusted can impose their policies. Often not a very pretty process, but the alternative is always worse...

[DaveDodo007]

So, please describe to me what the middle ground is between "what's mine is mine" and "what's mine is yours."

Either my property is mine and you don't get to take it or it's not mine and you do.

You haven't heard of government then?
There is one in most countries. People seem to like it.
But they get one, whether they like it or not.

And the reality of government is that it can take whatever it decides to. Even your own body, (for national service etc.) or your children. So your property is yours, so long as the government wants, and not a minute longer.

What you call "your property" is just what the government allows you to have.

Somewhat over the top, this. There are legal defences against excessive government interference in ones private life and financial arrangements in most democracies, as there should be...

However, in terms of Seth's point; all taxation, when considered dispassionately, involves taking from a variety of people, and giving to others, including government officials, soldiers, police and firemen, to give only a few examples. There is always room for debate as to whether the taxation level is excessive, or whether the recipients of the tax are deserving or not. The compromise, the middle ground that Seth so abhors is, in the end, a position that an electorate can accept. Political parties compete (and you love competition, don't you Seth?), and the parties that are the least distrusted can impose their policies. Often not a very pretty process, but the alternative is always worse...

Yay Australia, once the home of the real man.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/fight ... kn7an.html

Basically you are fucked.

[JimC]

Yes, Dave, I've read about this course.

It affects a handful of schools, in a very minor way. It has no effect whatsoever on my school.

[DaveDodo007]

Yes, Dave, I've read about this course.

It affects a handful of schools, in a very minor way. It has no effect whatsoever on my school.

Not happening in my school therefore it's OK...Gotcha...

[Brian Peacock]

Women, know your place.

[Hermit]

Women, know your place.

Indeed. Bitches ought to be reminded of their limits.

[mistermack]

What you call "your property" is just what the government allows you to have.

Somewhat over the top, this. There are legal defences against excessive government interference in ones private life and financial arrangements in most democracies, as there should be...

Yes, in the day-to-day running of the modern stable state. But in principle, your property is not your own.
Even in the US, the government can take your guns. If they get enough support for a constitutional change, they can take everyone's guns.
And in practice, of course, many of the protections in a constitution are useless. Well, the law never worried Hitler did it? Once you have the army and police on your side, legal defences don't mean anything.

[Sean Hayden]

...might makes right eh

[mistermack]

...might makes right eh

It does, if you ask the mighty.

[Jason]

contumelious

For introducing me to this word, you win 10 internets.

[Brian Peacock]

Thanks Fakky - I'll be sure to spend them wisely. It was a toss up between 'contumelious' or 'vituperative', but contumely seemed more appropriate than vituperation, and I didn't want to heavily salt my captiousness with too much opprobrium.

[Seth]

So, please describe to me what the middle ground is between "what's mine is mine" and "what's mine is yours."

Either my property is mine and you don't get to take it or it's not mine and you do.

You haven't heard of government then?
There is one in most countries. People seem to like it.
But they get one, whether they like it or not.

And the reality of government is that it can take whatever it decides to. Even your own body, (for national service etc.) or your children. So your property is yours, so long as the government wants, and not a minute longer.

What you call "your property" is just what the government allows you to have.

So, what you're saying is that in your (Marxist) worldview there is no such thing as private property at all. I thought so. See, there is no middle ground at all, just as I said.

[Seth]

So, please describe to me what the middle ground is between "what's mine is mine" and "what's mine is yours."

Either my property is mine and you don't get to take it or it's not mine and you do.

You haven't heard of government then?
There is one in most countries. People seem to like it.
But they get one, whether they like it or not.

And the reality of government is that it can take whatever it decides to. Even your own body, (for national service etc.) or your children. So your property is yours, so long as the government wants, and not a minute longer.

What you call "your property" is just what the government allows you to have.

Somewhat over the top, this. There are legal defences against excessive government interference in ones private life and financial arrangements in most democracies, as there should be...

However, in terms of Seth's point; all taxation, when considered dispassionately, involves taking from a variety of people, and giving to others, including government officials, soldiers, police and firemen, to give only a few examples. There is always room for debate as to whether the taxation level is excessive, or whether the recipients of the tax are deserving or not. The compromise, the middle ground that Seth so abhors is, in the end, a position that an electorate can accept. Political parties compete (and you love competition, don't you Seth?), and the parties that are the least distrusted can impose their policies. Often not a very pretty process, but the alternative is always worse...

The issue is far simpler than you suggest. There are two types of taxation: Remunirative (administrative) and redistributive.

The first category, remunirative or administrative, are taxes imposed to pay for the taxpayer's share of the amenities, infrastructure and services that government supplies. Examples include property taxes that pay for law enforcement and fire protection, streets, sales taxes that pay for improvements to public infrastructure, sewer fees, water fees, taxes for parks and libraries and taxes that fund the operations of government.

The second category, redistributive, is the problematic one. Redistributive taxes are exactly that, they take money from one person and give it more or less directly to another person, as in welfare payments, food stamp programs and other welfare expenditures that are entirely unrelated to any service, good or infrastructure available to or used by the taxpayer. Such taxes are nothing more than, at the core, a form of involuntary servitude imposed on the productive class in the interests of supporting the dependent class in a very direct manner.

The former is, or at least can be morally supportable even under Libertarian principles as being a manifestation of paying your just debts, which include the costs of providing amenities to you as a citizen.

The latter is always and inevitably immoral and unconscionable because it flatly enslaves the individual to the interests and support of people he has no moral, legal or ethical responsibility to support.

This is not to say that in some circumstances deserving members of the dependent class do not need to be supported, but the moral fashion for doing so is for the government to become a persuader and salesman for the deserving members of the dependent class that persuades people to voluntarily donate a portion of their labor to the benefit of the poor.

[Seth]

What you call "your property" is just what the government allows you to have.

Somewhat over the top, this. There are legal defences against excessive government interference in ones private life and financial arrangements in most democracies, as there should be...

Yes, in the day-to-day running of the modern stable state. But in principle, your property is not your own.
Even in the US, the government can take your guns.

Well, "government" (ie: the tyrannical majority) "can" do anything to anyone, if the people allow it the power and ability to do so. But that's hardly a respectable argument that supports the notion that nobody owns anything of their own and that everything is a gift of the government (majority). That's a gross oversimplification.

If they get enough support for a constitutional change, they can take everyone's guns.

They can try. You see, in the US the Constitution doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it simply prohibits the government, at any level, from infringing on that right. The right itself pre-exists and exists entirely independent of government and is not a creature of any legislature. It exists by virtue of the individual's status as a human being.

And in practice, of course, many of the protections in a constitution are useless. Well, the law never worried Hitler did it? Once you have the army and police on your side, legal defences don't mean anything.

And that's PRECISELY why we have, and will keep, an armed citizenry, because when the citizenry is armed it always outnumbers the army and the police and is therefore always capable of putting down such tyranny. You are correct, when legal defenses fail the ultimate guardian of liberty (and property) is the right to keep and bear arms and the arms that the people keep and bear in anticipation of any attempt to strip them of their fundamental rights.

[Seth]

...might makes right eh

It does, if you ask the mighty.

Exactly, which is why our system encourages the weak to exercise their right to keep and bear arms to defend against the predations of the mighty.

As Samuel Colt said of his .45 Colt Peacemaker, "It's the Great Equalizer." It makes the 95 year old widow the force equivalent of anyone else.