trish, you do realise don't you your analysis applies to anyone who takes out more than they put in? or do you have preferred client groups who get a pass on that?
Printable View
trish, you do realise don't you your analysis applies to anyone who takes out more than they put in? or do you have preferred client groups who get a pass on that?
It's not my analysis, it's simple common sense. By participating in our democracy and availing yourself of its fruits you have incurred an obligation to abide by the law. If you think you're paying more in then you're getting out (and I seriously seriously doubt it) then take it up with the legislature. If you willfully refuse to pay your debts, then you are an untrustworthy freeloader. Tax evaders are freeloaders.
Prospero, you may or not be aware that there is a strong tradition of minimalism/anarchism/minarchism in the social sciences. Students used to be asked to compare the arguments in John Rawls' A Theory of Justice, with Robert Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia, precisely because the former attempted to develop a theory of justice from within the context of the modern state, while Nozick disputed the purpose of most state institutions; together they formed part of the intellectual arguments in the 1970s which challenged the dominance of Keynesian economics and social democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
In political sociology, Charles Tilly for years maintained his argument that the state is a protection racket, there is an eloquent chapter on his beliefs in this link (for some reason the typescript is occasionally odd but you can read around it).
static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf
Tilly argues that war/violence has been the determining factor in the creation of the modern state, whereas I think he downplays the role played by money and trade; and his historic examples are thus drawn to the internal imposition of Royal power at the expense of local barons, and the maritime imposition of power across continents, and incidentally how piracy became part of the mix which forced the creation of the state. He doesn't have room for the arguments which you find in Skinner's books on the history of political philosophy where the growth of the Italian city states, while not disavowing violence, was nevertheless based on trade, he is wrong about China which was a maritime power, on the basis of the Emperors' use of inland waterwats; and Tilly thus doesn't see the protection racket in class terms, as the creation of laws and institutions that developed to protect the interests of the merchant classes at the expense of the 'peasants and workers'; and does not go beyond the modern state to concede with Marx that communism would not require the existence of a state at all, though you won't find many of Ayn Rand's disciples begging to be members of a voluntary association if it is also called Communism...what purpose would private property serve in a voluntary association?
As I see it, the flaw in an8150's argument is that he/she does not admit that our states in the UK and the USA are more voluntary than he wants to believe; the concept of coercion is in this context an attempt to describe something he doesn't like as coercive/negative, suggesting that if you oppose it, you must enjoy being coercive. It is entirely possible for him/her or anyone else to create a political party/movement whose dedicated aim is to end state power, and re-structure social relations as voluntary associations, presumably with the defence of the realm the only 'national' organisation, although there is no logic for this in objectivism either, and, as the American Colonies showed in the 1770s, defence -indeed, attack- can be mounted through local armed militias.
The Governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were suppposed to reduce state power, and to the extent that in the UK the state ceased to run commercial enterprises, Thatcher succeeded, yet by the time she left office, government spending was higher than it was when she left it, and the proliferation of non-governmental associations, providing services paid for by the tax-payer had increased.
But this is an idea that should be put to the people on a regular basis; in my opinion there are only a few who would actually want to live through the transition from the security provided by the NHS, for example, to the lottery of voluntarism; and anyway our participation as citizens in this state is not closed, this is not North Korea or the old USSR -there are many instruments that we can use to create transparent government, to tie legislators down to the rules we create, and so on. If anything, we need more collective action to make the UK more democratic.
You can also read about Nozick here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
At last, some intelligent and informed observations. Stavros, welcome back.
Especially this part->Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
The "bolding" is mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
This the basic problem with the egoist ideal. Well, aside from the bullshit notion that altruism doesn't exist. The silly idea that one shouldn't contribute to the pot they eat from unless it suits them at the moment. Worrying about whether you're putting in more than somebody else is a form of paranoia caused by the belief that personal property is more important than the society itself that feeds you in the first place. Nobody's twisting anybody else's arm to belong to the society. If you don't like the basic rules of social behavior, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to Somalia or wherever you can find a place that lives without rules. Maybe all by yourself in a cave somewhere.
I think you'll find, trish, that the concept of coercion is the concept of coercion. It doesn't become something else in a different context. Something else in a different context is, er, something else. As Ayn Rand used to say, A is A.
Nevertheless, I fully accept that it is open to me to try and change things from within. The education I've been trying to give you over the last couple of days might be taken as an example of this. I've also agreed with Prospero that I, and those few who agree with me, are unlikely to achieve any such change and, I say, one of the reasons for this is the sheer weight of numbers of people in receipt of freebies - freeloaders, if you like - (Mittens' 47%?) all of whom have votes. So I'm up against votes bought and paid for. Heigh-ho.
hippifried, "This the basic problem with the egoist ideal. Well, aside from the bullshit notion that altruism doesn't exist [who said that? Not me. In point of fact, I think most of what is called altruism is in fact selfishness, in that most altruistic acts are done in order to make the doer feel better. I have no problem with per se, but I do object to the suggestion that it is somehow disinterested. Not to say that altruism in its purest form doesn't exist, but it's very rare]. The silly idea that one shouldn't contribute to the pot they eat from unless it suits them at the moment [I haven't said you shouldn't; what I've said is you shouldn't be compelled to contribute to someone else's pot. It's really not that difficult to grasp]. Worrying about whether you're putting in more than somebody else is a form of paranoia caused by the belief that personal property is more important than the society itself that feeds you in the first place [you're right, I didn't build that bridge, an abstraction called society did]. Nobody's twisting anybody else's arm to belong to the society [actually, don't you Americans have extra-territorial taxation?]. If you don't like the basic rules of social behavior [you're not describing social behaviour, you're describing what has been legislated for], then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to Somalia or wherever you can find a place that lives without rules. Maybe all by yourself in a cave somewhere. [a better argument, but one that fails to address things like family ties]"
Listening to you lot, I wonder what you suppose folks should be voting about. I mean, if it's all settled like.
Of course coercion is coercion. I wouldn't deny a tautology, though I will deny that you can prove anything of significance from one so simple. The point is you are not being coerced to perform an acton when when your motivation excludes fear of penalty for not doing it.
But you already conceded your point when you praised Stavros's intelligent post. :)
The capacity to make yourself understood to almost any citizen through the medium of the written word has been provided largely by Federal, State and municipal tax dollars. Nevermind if you personally were home schooled or attended only private schools, those who are reading your words on this thread (available to you because of a worldwide collective effort known as the internet) learned to read because society at large paid to have them taught. In my town taxes are not levied by an all powerful King. We vote on whether we should or shouldn’t grant our local school system more taxing authority. Those of us who pay our taxes pay proudly without coericion (if even it hurts) because we’re proud of our teachers, our students and our schools. People who refuse to pay their taxes are freeloaders. You want to make a case for freeloading be my guest. But penalties against freeloading do not attain the level of coercion.
What a crock of shit. Who said altruism doesn't exist? The demigod of the egoist cult Ayn Rand did, & you just parroted her argument. When did disinterest become a prerequisite for altruism? Or any virtue really.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
"someone else's pot" wasn't any part of what I was saying & you know it. Nice try at changing the subject, but it doesn't work. I didn't just get off the boat. I've argued all this many times. Without fail, it always comes to a point where the egoist tries to change the subject, paraphrase what I said into something I never said, claim ignorance of common terminology, or rewrite the dictionary to fit the agenda, or some combination thereof. It's always deliberate, & I see no reason to let you slide. Especially when you're trying to use it as a lead in for some unsuccessful snide or condescending remark.
Society isn't an abstraction. It's the reason we exist as the dominant species, or even as a species at all. We're bereft of fang, claw, speed, & strength. Without the social collective, we never get out of the trees. Maybe we survive if one of the real predators figured out that ranching humans would give them an unlimited supply of food.
Now how did I get the impression that you were American? Oh well, to answer your question on out of country taxation: Not necessarily. I'm no lawyer, butteye believe it has something to do with whether you bring the money back here. It's a jurisdictional thing. You can look it up if you like. I won't because I don't care.
Social behavior is merely what's expected in order to get along in the society. The universal moral code deals with interpersonal contact, & the rest is all about pooling resources to make life more comfortable. That's how that bridge that you use but didn't build got there. Water comes out of the tap. You take a shit & flush it off to somewhere else to be properly dealt with. Infrastructure is always a group effort. We legislate because of the sheer volume of the population. We use taxation instead of conscription because currency simplifies barter.
Family ties??? Don't start gettin' all mushy & altruistic. They're free to follow you wherever. Not that they would.
Nothing's settled. You're still whining.