Connecticut (et al)

[JimC]

Blind Groper wrote:

Of course, governments over-tax in order to finance unworthy things, like going to war in Iraq. That cannot be justified. But to help those who are in need is not something we should argue against.

Yes, I think this is where the nub of the argument is. The vast majority of people accept the need for taxation of some sort, as a way of supporting shared community infra-structure, and to support those in genuine need. Rejection of taxation in principle, due to quibbling about individual rights is the pastime of a tiny extremist minority, who should simply be ignored (unless they fail to pay their required taxes, in which case due legal process occurs).

The devil, of course, is in the detail, in particular the tax structure in terms of individual wealth, and the uses to which taxes are put. Here, there is room for legitimate political argument. Even so, there will be some sort of irreducible minimum amount of tax monies that any government would require.

As for justifying any given war, you may have one opinion, others may differ. In the end, it will simply be one factor on which a given government is judged by the voters...

[Seth]

Seth

People are not as much individuals as you think. We are all part of a society. Even hermits need to buy stuff, produced by wider society.

The key word in that sentence being "buy." "Buy" infers that the hermit engages in a voluntary transaction where value is exchanged for value. That's a completely Libertarian philosophy. You make something I need or want, and I exchange something that you need or want for that item.

That's not what Marxism (socialism) proposes at all. Socialism is the concept that the hermit "needs" something (food perhaps) and that simply because he "needs" it, the collective is justified in enslaving some other person or people to his "need" by forcing them to labor on his behalf. That's neither commerce nor voluntary, it's pure unadulterated involuntary servitude.

If you are going to go off doing what you think is for your individual needs without reference to the rules of society, then society will react against you. In due course, you will be in prison, or in hospital, or dead.

Strawman obfuscation.

The question here is whether or not Person A can be forced to labor on behalf of Person B against his will, not whether Person A obeys the laws of society that guide social behavior. I've said many times that what a man consumes or enjoys by way of amenities or services provided by government (which is everyone else but him) creates a debt upon that individual that he is obliged to pay.

But taking my money and giving it to someone else because you deem that they "need" it more than I do has nothing whatever to do with just debts incurred through voluntary use of public services or amenities.

It's pure involuntary servitude, nothing more.

Just because "society" thinks I owe some ghetto-dwelling dependent class crack dealer a welfare check doesn't mean that I do, it only means that they have the force to enslave me to the collective will, not the moral suasion to take what's mine and give it to someone else against my will.

[JimC]

Then you exercise your vote, and vote for a candidate that promises to reduce welfare payments.

If your policy doesn't get up, you quit whining and accept the democratic decision...

[Seth]

Blind Groper wrote:

Of course, governments over-tax in order to finance unworthy things, like going to war in Iraq. That cannot be justified. But to help those who are in need is not something we should argue against.

Yes, I think this is where the nub of the argument is. The vast majority of people accept the need for taxation of some sort, as a way of supporting shared community infra-structure, and to support those in genuine need. Rejection of taxation in principle, due to quibbling about individual rights is the pastime of a tiny extremist minority, who should simply be ignored (unless they fail to pay their required taxes, in which case due legal process occurs).

And you'll note that I've never said that all taxation is evil. I'm very careful to identify which taxes I'm referring to, and those are the purely redistributive taxes that take money from one person, filter it through the State bureaucracy where about 30 percent of it is skimmed off by the bureaucrats to line their pockets and the rest is transferred directly to someone else whom the bureaucrats have decided "needs" the remainder more than the person who labored to produce it does.

Those sorts of taxes are the immoral ones I'm referring to, not "compensatory taxes" that the individual owes because he has (or may at will) consume some public resource.

The devil, of course, is in the detail, in particular the tax structure in terms of individual wealth, and the uses to which taxes are put. Here, there is room for legitimate political argument. Even so, there will be some sort of irreducible minimum amount of tax monies that any government would require.

Of course.

As for justifying any given war, you may have one opinion, others may differ. In the end, it will simply be one factor on which a given government is judged by the voters...

And even an "unjust" war is a legitimate expense of the government and an "amenity or service" that everyone consumes as a part of providing for the national defense, and therefore taxation to support that war, unjust or otherwise, is legitimate value-for-value exchange from the taxpayer to the government (taxes) and from the government to the taxpayer (national security and domestic tranquility), whether or not the individual agrees with the political motives involved.

As you say, the penalty for engaging in an unjust war is political execution at the next election.

But taking my hard-earned money only to turn around and give it to some "needy" dependent-class layabout is not even in the same universe of philosophical thought. That's pure theft and enslavement.

[Seth]

Then you exercise your vote, and vote for a candidate that promises to reduce welfare payments.

Or I can (and have) figured out how to never pay income tax again so I won't be paying for welfare.

If your policy doesn't get up, you quit whining and accept the democratic decision...

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Thank God I don't live in a democracy.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

But taking my hard-earned money only to turn around and give it to some "needy" dependent-class layabout is not even in the same universe of philosophical thought. That's pure theft and enslavement.

All tax becomes a pool of money - your $100 bucks isn't labelled, and carefully given to a crack addict, tied in a pink bow with a card saying "love from Seth"...

Your real options are campaigning for lower taxes in general, tighter restrictions on social services, etc. I may or may not agree with such policies, but they are a politically realistic target that you and others have every right to pursue.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

But taking my hard-earned money only to turn around and give it to some "needy" dependent-class layabout is not even in the same universe of philosophical thought. That's pure theft and enslavement.

All tax becomes a pool of money - your $100 bucks isn't labelled, and carefully given to a crack addict, tied in a pink bow with a card saying "love from Seth"...

Indeed, although by rights it should. Money is fungible. That's the problem with pure redistributive taxation, it can be easily concealed as something else, which is why such taxation is immoral and evil and should not be allowed.

If the government needs money for welfare, then it should put a box on the 1040 that says "Donate X dollars for welfare payments" and fund all social programs with similar checkboxes and earmarks. That way the government will know that its social programs are actually acceptable to the public, and they won't be enslaving anyone to another's service.

Your real options are campaigning for lower taxes in general, tighter restrictions on social services, etc. I may or may not agree with such policies, but they are a politically realistic target that you and others have every right to pursue.

Er, that's exactly what I'm doing.

[Blind groper]

Seth

There is a genuine pragmatic reason why social welfare is a good thing, that should even suit you. Quite simply, if people become desperate enough, they will come for you and your possessions, and even your broad collection of guns will not keep them out. You do not have eyes in the back of your head, or the ability to go without sleep indefinitely.

When welfare payments are removed (and it has been done in a number of nations), one result is a massive increase in violent crime. A welfare payment is, in fact, a cheap form of insurance.

[laklak]

One might also call that "protection money" or even "blackmail".

[Blind groper]

One might also call that "protection money" or even "blackmail".

Perhaps, though that is stretching it. The end result is, however, a better result for society.

[JimC]

Seth

There is a genuine pragmatic reason why social welfare is a good thing, that should even suit you. Quite simply, if people become desperate enough, they will come for you and your possessions, and even your broad collection of guns will not keep them out. You do not have eyes in the back of your head, or the ability to go without sleep indefinitely.

When welfare payments are removed (and it has been done in a number of nations), one result is a massive increase in violent crime. A welfare payment is, in fact, a cheap form of insurance.

I agree, but it is also possible that, at least in some societies, welfare has become an entrenched way of life, and is being given to people who, perhaps with some carefully tailored encouragement, get off their backsides and become productive members of society. In a polarised debate like this one, it can be too easy, in recoiling from the cruel and absurd views of those who oppose virtually all welfare payments, to go too far in the other direction.

[Blind groper]

Jim

I have no argument with that view. However, it is difficult to implement better systems. While some people always end up on welfare who should not be there, and there are always welfare cheats, the attempts that have been made in the past to reduce these problems rather all too often result in genuine cases being mistreated. Real poverty can be the result.

[JimC]

Jim

I have no argument with that view. However, it is difficult to implement better systems. While some people always end up on welfare who should not be there, and there are always welfare cheats, the attempts that have been made in the past to reduce these problems rather all too often result in genuine cases being mistreated. Real poverty can be the result.

Yes, I'm certainly not claiming it's easy, and care must be taken with genuine cases; however, I will assert that more can be done to separate the deserving from the cheats. Also, in the long run, it is unhealthy to have a caste of people who tend to be welfare dependent through multiple generations. Not just unhealthy for society, but unhealthy for them...

[Blind groper]

Jim

No one can really disagree with that. I just do not know of any way to tighten things up without causing genuinely poor people to suffer unnecessarily. Various governments have tried, and mostly failed.

[MrJonno]

One might also call that "protection money" or even "blackmail".

Yes it is and paying protection money/blackmail so you can live in a stable society can be a bargain