6 ms·

So... Your argument is, if the thing taking your money provides you with some benefit it's moral?

by maloney 10y ago

vec 10y ago
No, the argument is that humans are tribal creatures. Imagine going off to live in the woods with a handful of other individuals, 100% off the grid and with only the tools you can carry. Inevitably, it wouldn't be long before you start insisting that everyone help out with farming or hunting or repairs or something. It's literally built into our DNA that individuals should contribute some labor to the betterment of the tribe in exchange for the security and comfort the tribe provides. Now, fast-forward to the modern world. We have much, much bigger tribes called countries, and we have a way of talking about and trading human labor that we call money. But it's still true that you should contribute some of your labor (i.e. money) to the tribe (i.e. your country) in exchange for security and comfort (i.e. civilization). Taxes are moral so long as the taxed individuals consent to be part of the entity imposing the taxes, and there are very few individuals throughout history who have actually been willing to opt out of civilization. And, since you're reading a page on the internet you are clearly not one of them.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  It's not so black and white. You can be against taxes but not want to opt out of civilization. If the government wasn't stealing around 40% of my income, I could spend that money on initiatives that benefit people other than just myself. Money could even be pooled by neighbors to pay for things. The thing is it has to be up to the individual how they spend their money, not left to guys with guns forcing you to hand over your money (the government).
  - evgen 10y ago
    If the government wasn't stealing around 40% of my income, I could spend that money on initiatives that benefit people other than just myself. If the government was not stealing around 40% of your money I would come and take 100% of it and leave you bleeding in the gutter.
  - sgift 10y ago
    I'd rather not try out again what happens when we give people the option to help those less fortunate than them or let them suffer without any safety net for those people. History tells me that this won't work very well. And if you don't like that the government is stealing your money you can always go somewhere else (and resign your citizenship if your taxiation is bound by that) where they steal less money. You can even go somewhere where the government doesn't steal any of your money (usually only in countries where there's no government). At the end of the day democracy demands that we have to live with decisions that we personally do not like but the majority of people voted for. Everyone knows that this is not a great system, but we haven't found a better one yet. Not for lack of trying though.
    - jamesdwilson 10y ago
      > And if you don't like that the government is stealing your money you can always go somewhere else if you can afford it. > At the end of the day democracy demands that we have to live with decisions that we personally do not like but the majority of people voted for. All major USA candidates are connected to Soros.
- ultramancool 10y ago
  > Inevitably, it wouldn't be long before you start insisting that everyone help out with farming or hunting or repairs or something. Perhaps it would help understanding the other side if you were to look at it not as "insisting that everyone help out" but making trades with other people instead. You start trading them food in exchange for shelter, etc. Rather than expecting everyone to deserve equal shares of all output. Certainly this has happened many ways throughout history. The way you're suggesting is only one, and not only that, it's one which eventually falls apart as it scales up. > Taxes are moral so long as the taxed individuals consent to be part of the entity imposing the taxes, and there are very few individuals throughout history who have actually been willing to opt out of civilization. I'm not going to argue the "moral" aspect, but I think many people simply want to see the trade benefit of society and don't really care about much else. They're willing to tolerate the taxes for the sole reason that it's the only way for them to get access to wide trade networks currently. That trade benefit doesn't necessarily rely on much of what government provides and could, theoretically at least, operate completely without it, given the opportunity.
X86BSD 10y ago
I think a better argument is that it's simply not a voluntary contract between two parties. It's theft by one party that has a monopoly on violence to enforce the theft on the other party. Until one day when the other party stops playing by those rules and shoots back. "But you can vote to change it." If voting changed anything it would be illegal. Only an idiot believes "voting" means anything in a two party system where both parties are identical, and both are funded and given marching orders by massive international corporations. Dollars > votes and you only have the latter.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  Really sad to see all the libertarian viewpoints blanket down voted, mostly without any replies. It really seems like tech has been hit with a wave of pro-big government thinking. My personal theory is that it's younger people who didn't have to deal with the threat of a draft and the baby boomers heavy handed social meddling. The threat of being forced into a war you don't agree with will make you think twice about funding the entity making that happen. Same with watching decades of ineffective social engineering from above.
  - wstrange 10y ago
    I honestly don't get all the libertarian angst about paying taxes. As a Canadian, I pay a lot of tax. I grumble a bit during tax season - but I am incredibly grateful that I was lucky enough to be born in a prosperous country. A good part of my sucess (education, health care, etc) was paid for by other peoples taxes. So I am quite happy to return the favour. I also want to live in a society that is compassionate and takes care of those who can not take care of themselves. The libertarian viewpoint seems like "I got mine, so I'm OK".
    - dchest 10y ago
      So I am quite happy to return the favour. It's great that you're happy, but you don't have a choice. You'll go to jail if you don't "return favour". I also want to live in a society that is compassionate and takes care of those who can not take care of themselves. Simple logic will tell you that if a society is compassionate, it doesn't need force taxation. From dictionary: compassion is a feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc. If you are forced to help, it's not compassion.

So... Your argument is, if the thing taking your money provides you with some benefit it's moral?

by maloney 10y ago

So... Your argument is, if the thing taking your money provides you with some benefit it's moral?

vec 10y ago

No, the argument is that humans are tribal creatures. Imagine going off to live in the woods with a handful of other individuals, 100% off the grid and with only the tools you can carry. Inevitably, it wouldn't be long before you start insisting that everyone help out with farming or hunting or repairs or something. It's literally built into our DNA that individuals should contribute some labor to the betterment of the tribe in exchange for the security and comfort the tribe provides. Now, fast-forward to the modern world. We have much, much bigger tribes called countries, and we have a way of talking about and trading human labor that we call money. But it's still true that you should contribute some of your labor (i.e. money) to the tribe (i.e. your country) in exchange for security and comfort (i.e. civilization). Taxes are moral so long as the taxed individuals consent to be part of the entity imposing the taxes, and there are very few individuals throughout history who have actually been willing to opt out of civilization. And, since you're reading a page on the internet you are clearly not one of them.

exstudent2 10y ago
It's not so black and white. You can be against taxes but not want to opt out of civilization. If the government wasn't stealing around 40% of my income, I could spend that money on initiatives that benefit people other than just myself. Money could even be pooled by neighbors to pay for things. The thing is it has to be up to the individual how they spend their money, not left to guys with guns forcing you to hand over your money (the government).
- evgen 10y ago
  If the government wasn't stealing around 40% of my income, I could spend that money on initiatives that benefit people other than just myself. If the government was not stealing around 40% of your money I would come and take 100% of it and leave you bleeding in the gutter.
- sgift 10y ago
  I'd rather not try out again what happens when we give people the option to help those less fortunate than them or let them suffer without any safety net for those people. History tells me that this won't work very well. And if you don't like that the government is stealing your money you can always go somewhere else (and resign your citizenship if your taxiation is bound by that) where they steal less money. You can even go somewhere where the government doesn't steal any of your money (usually only in countries where there's no government). At the end of the day democracy demands that we have to live with decisions that we personally do not like but the majority of people voted for. Everyone knows that this is not a great system, but we haven't found a better one yet. Not for lack of trying though.
  - jamesdwilson 10y ago
    > And if you don't like that the government is stealing your money you can always go somewhere else if you can afford it. > At the end of the day democracy demands that we have to live with decisions that we personally do not like but the majority of people voted for. All major USA candidates are connected to Soros.
ultramancool 10y ago
> Inevitably, it wouldn't be long before you start insisting that everyone help out with farming or hunting or repairs or something. Perhaps it would help understanding the other side if you were to look at it not as "insisting that everyone help out" but making trades with other people instead. You start trading them food in exchange for shelter, etc. Rather than expecting everyone to deserve equal shares of all output. Certainly this has happened many ways throughout history. The way you're suggesting is only one, and not only that, it's one which eventually falls apart as it scales up. > Taxes are moral so long as the taxed individuals consent to be part of the entity imposing the taxes, and there are very few individuals throughout history who have actually been willing to opt out of civilization. I'm not going to argue the "moral" aspect, but I think many people simply want to see the trade benefit of society and don't really care about much else. They're willing to tolerate the taxes for the sole reason that it's the only way for them to get access to wide trade networks currently. That trade benefit doesn't necessarily rely on much of what government provides and could, theoretically at least, operate completely without it, given the opportunity.

X86BSD 10y ago

I think a better argument is that it's simply not a voluntary contract between two parties. It's theft by one party that has a monopoly on violence to enforce the theft on the other party. Until one day when the other party stops playing by those rules and shoots back. "But you can vote to change it." If voting changed anything it would be illegal. Only an idiot believes "voting" means anything in a two party system where both parties are identical, and both are funded and given marching orders by massive international corporations. Dollars > votes and you only have the latter.

exstudent2 10y ago
Really sad to see all the libertarian viewpoints blanket down voted, mostly without any replies. It really seems like tech has been hit with a wave of pro-big government thinking. My personal theory is that it's younger people who didn't have to deal with the threat of a draft and the baby boomers heavy handed social meddling. The threat of being forced into a war you don't agree with will make you think twice about funding the entity making that happen. Same with watching decades of ineffective social engineering from above.
- wstrange 10y ago
  I honestly don't get all the libertarian angst about paying taxes. As a Canadian, I pay a lot of tax. I grumble a bit during tax season - but I am incredibly grateful that I was lucky enough to be born in a prosperous country. A good part of my sucess (education, health care, etc) was paid for by other peoples taxes. So I am quite happy to return the favour. I also want to live in a society that is compassionate and takes care of those who can not take care of themselves. The libertarian viewpoint seems like "I got mine, so I'm OK".
  - dchest 10y ago
    So I am quite happy to return the favour. It's great that you're happy, but you don't have a choice. You'll go to jail if you don't "return favour". I also want to live in a society that is compassionate and takes care of those who can not take care of themselves. Simple logic will tell you that if a society is compassionate, it doesn't need force taxation. From dictionary: compassion is a feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc. If you are forced to help, it's not compassion.