4 ms·

Yes, we're taking your stuff. Don't worry it's for your own good. If it's not then it's at least good for society. Look, we're taking your stuff here's a lis

Yes, we're taking your stuff. Don't worry it's for your own good. If it's not then it's at least good for society. Look, we're taking your stuff here's a list of excuses just pick one.

pyre 17y ago
So we would all be better off in a society with no policies to increase the education of the poor/working class? Lower literacy rates are a boon to society? Or just a boon to you because you are literate and have money so screw everyone else?
- sp332 17y ago
  Yes. If I care about improving the lot of poorer people, I'll do it with my own money and probably with less beaurocracy. If not, get your hand out of my wallet.
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    ... he says as society crumbles around him and the unfortunate kill him for his stuff...
    - sp332 17y ago
      The only reason a society would tax itself and give the money to the poor, is if (at least) some individuals in that society wanted to give their money to the poor. If no one in the society wants to give their money to the poor, then the society as a whole wouldn't tax itself for that reason, either. As a believer in personal property rights, I think that those individuals who care about the poor should be free to give their money to the poor. But I don't think that their moral high horse gives them a right to use other people's money.
      - gjm11 17y ago
        The argument that I think you're making in your first paragraph is fallacious. In particular, it can happen that (1) everyone wants to give some money to the poor but (2) if they all have to do it individually (rather than a universal tax) no one will do it. This will happen, for instance, if everyone strongly dislikes being worse off than their neighbours, but weakly prefers that the poor be helped. (This is the same idea as in the familiar situations of "prisoners' dilemma" and "tragedy of the commons". It's also why some sports have officially-enforced requirements for safety measures: everyone's better off if everyone's protected, but if it's optional then that's at best an unstable equilibrium because a player or team that chooses to forgo the protection may get an advantage over those who don't. But once no one is protected, all those competitive advantages go away and everyone's worse off than if everyone had been protected.) Now, if (as your second paragraph suggests) you really believe that taxation is so fundamentally evil that it cannot be justified whatever its good consequences, then of course the above will leave you entirely unmoved. But if you are prepared to consider trading off harms against benefits, then I don't think you're entitled to dismiss the possibility that some redistributive taxation is a good thing overall; in particular, you can't just say "if people want to give money to the poor then let them do so" unless you have good reason to think that the sort of situation I described above doesn't obtain.
        fexl 17y ago
        I consider it evil to initiate force against another individual. Therefore, specifically, I consider it evil to incarcerate someone for not paying money into a giant pool to be spent by other people. I consider it good for individuals to engage with each other in purely voluntary ways. That is the source of happiness, wealth, health, and life. All else is a waste of my limited time on earth.
      - AlisdairO 17y ago
        How do you feel about progressive taxation?
- randallsquared 17y ago
  So we would all be better off in a society with no policies to increase the education of the poor/working class? Lower literacy rates are a boon to society? It's not obvious that policies intended to do X actually help X very much. In fact, there are so many counter-examples (I'm sure you can think of many yourself) that suggesting that the absence of government policy to do X would result in X not being done falls flat. Most of the time, people overall are better off without a government policy concerning them. Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that most people are better off if more (other) people are literate.
  - pyre 17y ago
    He's not railing against any particular policies. He's railing against all government interaction.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      Yeah, that's why I generalized the argument to X. Government intervention is generally a bad thing, not only a bad thing in a few very limited cases.
      - pyre 17y ago
        Wouldn't it then be better to rail against specific policies that are either not proven or proven to be bad than to just say, "screw it all, we'll do nothing?"
        randallsquared 17y ago
        It might be more effective, but it's unclear: I don't know of any strategy that's likely to actually help significantly in rolling back the scope of government, by any metric. (I'm not saying there isn't any, only that I don't know what it would be). Note, though, that even people who want the government to do less aren't saying "we'll do nothing", they're saying "we want to choose which things to do ourselves". No one needs a law or regulation to spend their own money, it's only required when you want someone else's money spent without having to convince them they should.

Yes, we're taking your stuff. Don't worry it's for your own good. If it's not then it's at least good for society. Look, we're taking your stuff here's a list of excuses just pick one.

pyre 17y ago

So we would all be better off in a society with no policies to increase the education of the poor/working class? Lower literacy rates are a boon to society? Or just a boon to you because you are literate and have money so screw everyone else?

sp332 17y ago
Yes. If I care about improving the lot of poorer people, I'll do it with my own money and probably with less beaurocracy. If not, get your hand out of my wallet.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  ... he says as society crumbles around him and the unfortunate kill him for his stuff...
  - sp332 17y ago
    The only reason a society would tax itself and give the money to the poor, is if (at least) some individuals in that society wanted to give their money to the poor. If no one in the society wants to give their money to the poor, then the society as a whole wouldn't tax itself for that reason, either. As a believer in personal property rights, I think that those individuals who care about the poor should be free to give their money to the poor. But I don't think that their moral high horse gives them a right to use other people's money.
    - gjm11 17y ago
      The argument that I think you're making in your first paragraph is fallacious. In particular, it can happen that (1) everyone wants to give some money to the poor but (2) if they all have to do it individually (rather than a universal tax) no one will do it. This will happen, for instance, if everyone strongly dislikes being worse off than their neighbours, but weakly prefers that the poor be helped. (This is the same idea as in the familiar situations of "prisoners' dilemma" and "tragedy of the commons". It's also why some sports have officially-enforced requirements for safety measures: everyone's better off if everyone's protected, but if it's optional then that's at best an unstable equilibrium because a player or team that chooses to forgo the protection may get an advantage over those who don't. But once no one is protected, all those competitive advantages go away and everyone's worse off than if everyone had been protected.) Now, if (as your second paragraph suggests) you really believe that taxation is so fundamentally evil that it cannot be justified whatever its good consequences, then of course the above will leave you entirely unmoved. But if you are prepared to consider trading off harms against benefits, then I don't think you're entitled to dismiss the possibility that some redistributive taxation is a good thing overall; in particular, you can't just say "if people want to give money to the poor then let them do so" unless you have good reason to think that the sort of situation I described above doesn't obtain.
      - fexl 17y ago
        I consider it evil to initiate force against another individual. Therefore, specifically, I consider it evil to incarcerate someone for not paying money into a giant pool to be spent by other people. I consider it good for individuals to engage with each other in purely voluntary ways. That is the source of happiness, wealth, health, and life. All else is a waste of my limited time on earth.
    - AlisdairO 17y ago
      How do you feel about progressive taxation?
randallsquared 17y ago
So we would all be better off in a society with no policies to increase the education of the poor/working class? Lower literacy rates are a boon to society? It's not obvious that policies intended to do X actually help X very much. In fact, there are so many counter-examples (I'm sure you can think of many yourself) that suggesting that the absence of government policy to do X would result in X not being done falls flat. Most of the time, people overall are better off without a government policy concerning them. Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that most people are better off if more (other) people are literate.
- pyre 17y ago
  He's not railing against any particular policies. He's railing against all government interaction.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Yeah, that's why I generalized the argument to X. Government intervention is generally a bad thing, not only a bad thing in a few very limited cases.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Wouldn't it then be better to rail against specific policies that are either not proven or proven to be bad than to just say, "screw it all, we'll do nothing?"
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        It might be more effective, but it's unclear: I don't know of any strategy that's likely to actually help significantly in rolling back the scope of government, by any metric. (I'm not saying there isn't any, only that I don't know what it would be). Note, though, that even people who want the government to do less aren't saying "we'll do nothing", they're saying "we want to choose which things to do ourselves". No one needs a law or regulation to spend their own money, it's only required when you want someone else's money spent without having to convince them they should.