They act like they have a fundamental right to freeload on the labor of others. When you explain their rights are granted by the very people they would cheat against they even agree yet continue to repeat their claim ad nauseum.
Printable View
They act like they have a fundamental right to freeload on the labor of others. When you explain their rights are granted by the very people they would cheat against they even agree yet continue to repeat their claim ad nauseum.
"...these people who constantly complain about taxes... "
Actually I'm complaining about coercion. The taxes, are a secondary point.
On your broader point, Odelay, you sound like you're channelling Marie Antionette: why don't these peasant ever stop complaining!?
hipifried, "Every action has a reaction [if you say so. my reaction to being coerced is to complain about it which, under the circumstances, is remarkably well-behaved of me]. Everything you do touches someone else [meaningless drivel and also untrue]. There are consequences to everything you do, & there's no such thing as a right to impunity [what are you talking about?]. You can refuse to pay your taxes. No problem. Just don't snivel about the consequence that you already know is near certain [I can refuse to do as i am ordered, but I shouldn't complain if my bosses wreck my life as a result? you are talking like a slave]. Go hang out by Walden Pond & think about it. "
trish, "Do you think people proudly perform their duties [duties? duties? what duty do I owe you?]only out of fear of the authorities [if they don't, why is coercive law needed to make people buy driving licenses and pay taxes?], or only for a paycheck? Then how do we get by with an underpaid volunteer military? [American military spending is larger than that of, I think, the next ten countries combined, and 40% of the world's military spending. And you don't get by on it. When did you last win a war?] But don't be facetious, the law is there to take care of unmotivated freeloaders [you sound like a cross between an enforcer for the mob and a Soviet commissar threatening beatings until moral improves]."
trish, "They act like they have a fundamental right to freeload on the labor of others [you're the one demanding I fulfill my supposed duty to you by paying you money; if anyone is freeloading, it's you, demanding the fruits of my labour]. When you explain their rights are granted [liberties are taken, they are not given; to think otherwise is the creed of slaves] by the very people they would cheat against they even agree yet continue to repeat their claim ad nauseum. "
I can hardly believe I am corresponding with Americans.
And I can hardly credit your absurd use of the word slave in so many of your posts and your obsession with coercion as - which you seem to see, in your constant return to it - the worst crime that can be committed. What you see as coercion i see as a mutually agreed system of co-operation. Then in an otherwise civilised discussion with Trish you suddenly accuse of her of talking like Soviet commissar or mafia enforcer.
Your political philosphy is based on a naivety about human nature. Of course a very large number - dare i speculate on it being a majority - of people will not pay tax given the chance. Most of us are in many respects selfish and given the chance,will keep the money. We need a government, a structure, to safeguard us from all kinds of things - to take concerted action on climate change, to limit the greed of massive corporations, to protect the rights of the weaker in society etc etc.
I take it you do not believe in society?
That many Governments have failed to do as well as one would hope is no argument to support your curious notion of vitually no Government at all or no taxes.
If you are british i assume you are opposed fundamentally to the NHS, to state funding of education, to the provision of an old age pension for those who require it and for much more that makes us a relatively ciilised society.
Yes i did intend my reference to the road to nowhere and utopia to chime together. Utopia is of course nowhere and your political philosophy has as much chance of playing out in any way in the real world as seals do of attaining a professorship at Yale. I wholly support your freedom to cleave to these absurdities, to argue for them and indeed to apply them to your own life. But you do so knowing the potential legal outcome. Thanks.
Prospero,"And I can hardly credit your absurd use of the word slave in so many of your posts and your obsession with coercion as - which you seem to see, in your constant return to it - the worst crime that can be committed [I take it, Prospero, that you agree that what I have described as coercion is indeed coercion. The worst crime? Perhaps not, but if I held a gun to your head and demanded whatever fruits of your labour were to be found in your wallet, I suspect you'd be pretty dismayed. Yet that is the system you advocate. You perhaps haven't perceived it as such, because when it's done by the state we all recognise that resistance is futile and the gun therefore need not be shown, but it is there nevertheless, buried under piles of paperwork and backing up every bureaucrat's injunctions. I see no moral distinction between the state doing this, and a street mugger doing it. Both have their uses for the money. At least the street mugger has the guts to do his own dirty work]. What you see as coercion i see as a mutually agreed system of co-operation [if it were mutually-agreed, there'd be no need for coercive law to back it up; what you're describing is a co-operative society on the Victorian model. Nothing wrong with that model, I can see that it makes plenty of sense to some people in some circumstances. But I say there is a key moral distinction between between voluntary action and coerced action]. Then in an otherwise civilised discussion with Trish you suddenly accuse of her of talking like Soviet commissar or mafia enforcer [Oh, come off it! I've been on the receiving end of gratuitous smears throughout this thread. My description of trish at least has the merit of a relationship to reality].
Your political philosphy is based on a naivety about human nature [Not in the slightest, I'm quite content with human selfishness when practised voluntarily, I see nothing wrong with it and indeed celebrate it]. Of course a very large number - dare i speculate on it being a majority - of people will not pay tax given the chance [and there we have it: who are you to say that people should not be given the chance? Can you hear how monstrously arrogant it is to rejoice in a system that denies people their nature?]. Most of us are in many respects selfish and given the chance,will keep the money [good for us]. We need a government [to a very limited extent, I agree], a structure ][you can't structure your life without a government? such pathos!], to safeguard us from all kinds of things - to take concerted action on climate change, to limit the greed of massive corporations, to protect the rights of the weaker in society etc etc. [btw, why aren't you greedy for demanding the fruits of other people's labour?]
I take it you do not believe in society? [do I believe it exists as a tangible reality? no, it's an abstract concept, but a useful one in describing the world around us]
That many Governments have failed to do as well as one would hope is no argument to support your curious notion of vitually no Government at all or no taxes [I haven't made the argument from government incompetence, that's a pragmatic argument and we're still in the foothills of principle].
If you are british i assume you are opposed fundamentally to the NHS, to state funding of education, to the provision of an old age pension [yes, to all] for those who require it [require? if someone hasn't provided for his retirement, why should he retire?] and for much more that makes us a relatively ciilised society [in fact I say welfare has made us less civilised, less caring, less willing to participate in civic endeavour and more brutish].
Yes i did intend my reference to the road to nowhere and utopia to chime together. Utopia is of course nowhere and your political philosophy has as much chance of playing out in any way in the real world as seals do of attaining a professorship at Yale [as a matter of electoral politics, I agree; quite aside from anything else, social democracy creates a massive dependent client state, which isn't going to vote for an end to its freebies . On the other hand, when social democracy bankrupts itself, we'll see what emerges from the ashes. In Greece, Spain and Italy, history is on the side of military dictatorship. In the Anglospere, all bets are off]. I wholly support your freedom to cleave to these absurdities, to argue for them and indeed to apply them to your own life. But you do so knowing the potential legal outcome [indeed I do. Hence my complaint about coercion. At root, you are a theocrat. You say, "I know what's morally best and everybody should be compelled to act accordingly". Most people agree with you on the compulsion part. The problem is, you theocrats don't all agree on what's morally best and, as I've pointed out, once you've sold the pass on compulsion, or coercion, you left with no argument to confront those theocrats who'd use it against that which you hold dear. If you think providing someone else with free healthcare is the civilised thing to do, then in my view you should be free to provide that healthcare. What you should not have is the power to compel or coerce my assistance. I'm quite capable of making my own moral choices. And after all, that the essence of morality, that we choose to do what's right]. Thanks. "
Atomistic nonsense. Your ideas which, very thankfully, will never be played out in the real world in my lifetime (or yours) would lead to the collapse of our slight civilisation.
Either you live in society or out of it.
Go live in a commune with your foolish friends.
No distinction between a mugger and the state. Trite.
A theocrat. Ludicrous.
Looking again at your last post, it is clear that yours is a philosophy of the utmost selfishness. Your remarks on retirement for instance. "If they cannot afford to retire, then don't retire." Piffle. Many would choose not o retire but that choice is removed - including by reasons of illness. Old age, a lifetime of working, illness, weakness and an working world that boots the older out for many reasons, but often because it is is cheaper to employ younger people. All of these argue for a safety net provided by the state because the selfish -who you celebrate - will not do it.
Onc again we fall back on the weak deserve to go to the wall. Those of us who have property, vast wealth etc - often founded on complex factors including the exploitation of the weak and less intelligent - deserve to keep it all. Not to participate in helping the weak, the old, the poor, the sick etc - except that we choose to do it entirely from our own free will without societal structure which require us to be concerned about our fellow men and women (whose energy and industriousness we benefit from) How have your laissez faire notions worked in the eras before the 20th century. Not so well.
And regarding co-ercian your minarchist world is right to co-erce us to pay for defence? Yet that is one area where, given a choice, many would NOT see their money spent. So are they allowed to opt out? or would co-ercian be okay here?
And notions of defence need to be discussed surely? Do you mean external enemies? Do you mean terrorists? Do you mean criminals ? Those who would prey on the weak, the old, the defenceless? Muggers/ Rapists? Child abusers? THose behind honour killings? Gangs who would run riot without police to safeguard us against those they rob, rape and kill? How will that work in you minarchist world? What about protection against those greedy people who will play with the funds in the city - and lose their companies and investors billions of pounds or dollars unless rules exist (and rules perhaps better enforced than now). Rules of hygiene enforced by law in hospitals and places where we go to eat? Or are restaurants yhat have cockroaches and rats running around be okay in a Minarchist world rather than having rules which compel them to pay attention to regulations about hygiene and safety? Why not let children work as chimney sweeps again or spend their childhoods down in the darkness of the mines? Hospitals with rats in operating theatre and where you can only go anyway if you can afford to pay? Airlines not rquired to obey safety regulations. Or trains drivers. I could go on - but i think you get the picture. Do you really believe that human nature will prevail and give us all a nice harmonious world? Or would we return to a world where life was nasty, brutish and short for all but the most privileged?