3 ms·

The old "it was luck that got them their wealth, so it's morally acceptable to rob them" argument.

by aminok 10y ago

vannevar 10y ago
Not just luck, but the infrastructure that surrounds them and permeates every transaction. Luck alone gets you an extra coconut to take back to your mud hut, not a billion dollars and a super yacht. So yes, it's moral to charge them for that. It is not moral for them to take those services and benefits and not pay for them.
- aminok 10y ago
  Ah the old "they benefited from living in this country, so the country has a right to rob them" argument. Self-righteous demmaogogues love to propose robbing successful people and spreading their wealth.
  - vannevar 10y ago
    Ah, the old "taxes are robbery" argument. Libertarian romantics dreaming of their Randian Utopia, blissfully unaware of how wealth is actually created. Wealthy people are not necessarily successful people, unless your sole measure of a person is how much money they accumulate. Seems like a rather impoverished viewpoint.
    - aminok 10y ago
      Taxes on income are based on throwing those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are kept in a small enclosure, and where they often develop mental illness and suffer from physical and sexual assault. You justify this in your own mind with ideological constructs and narratives about "Randians" and "libertarians". In reality, you support violating human rights, and no argument you conjur up can justify that.
      - vannevar 10y ago
        In reality, there is no such thing as "private trade". You justify this in your own mind with ideological constructs and narratives about "private property" and "free markets". In reality, you support violating human rights, and no argument you can conjur up can justify that.
        aminok 10y ago
        Of course there's such a thing as private trade. The very fact that the government needs to require people to surrender their privacy rights and disclose all transactions and sources of income for an income tax to be enforceable proves the trade the income tax taxes is private. It is carried out between private parties in their private capacity. By every definition it's private trade. Common sense should tell you that too. No one has a right to 1) force people to give up their privacy and divulge details about the private interaction and 2) throw people in prison if they refuse to disclose this private information or if they refuse to hand over a share of the currency they are given in this private interaction. You believe in a world where people have no rights, especially if they engage in some private action that involves money changing hands (God forbid!). Typical socialist authoritarianism that rationalises imprisoning people by convincing himself ' there is no such thing as "private trade"'.
        vannevar 10y ago
        Behind every "private" trade is the power of the government to enforce the trade. Some contracts are unenforceable, and while you're free to make them, as a practical matter, they are generally avoided where there is an enforceable alternative. Because otherwise you're back in a state of nature, where the weak are at the mercy of the strong. That is the inescapable consequence of liberty as an absolute. And of course we have the power to force people to give up their privacy and divulge details about private interactions: we do it all the time in the context of child pornography, for instance. As individual human beings, we recognize that privacy (and personal liberty) are important values. But they are not absolutes, and we strive to balance them against our other interests, such as our health and happiness. A democratic government is the means that we use to distribute the responsibility for striking the balance. It might seem unfair that we don't get to choose at birth whether we want to live in modern society, where taxes are mandatory, or in a state of nature, where we are free of the terrible burden of taxation (and also free of any chance to amass a fortune, beyond a particularly large pile of coconuts). But there are many things we don't get to choose when we are born. Such is life.

The old "it was luck that got them their wealth, so it's morally acceptable to rob them" argument.

by aminok 10y ago

The old "it was luck that got them their wealth, so it's morally acceptable to rob them" argument.

Not just luck, but the infrastructure that surrounds them and permeates every transaction. Luck alone gets you an extra coconut to take back to your mud hut, not a billion dollars and a super yacht. So yes, it's moral to charge them for that. It is not moral for them to take those services and benefits and not pay for them.

aminok 10y ago
Ah the old "they benefited from living in this country, so the country has a right to rob them" argument. Self-righteous demmaogogues love to propose robbing successful people and spreading their wealth.
- vannevar 10y ago
  Ah, the old "taxes are robbery" argument. Libertarian romantics dreaming of their Randian Utopia, blissfully unaware of how wealth is actually created. Wealthy people are not necessarily successful people, unless your sole measure of a person is how much money they accumulate. Seems like a rather impoverished viewpoint.
  - aminok 10y ago
    Taxes on income are based on throwing those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are kept in a small enclosure, and where they often develop mental illness and suffer from physical and sexual assault. You justify this in your own mind with ideological constructs and narratives about "Randians" and "libertarians". In reality, you support violating human rights, and no argument you conjur up can justify that.
    - vannevar 10y ago
      In reality, there is no such thing as "private trade". You justify this in your own mind with ideological constructs and narratives about "private property" and "free markets". In reality, you support violating human rights, and no argument you can conjur up can justify that.
      - aminok 10y ago
        Of course there's such a thing as private trade. The very fact that the government needs to require people to surrender their privacy rights and disclose all transactions and sources of income for an income tax to be enforceable proves the trade the income tax taxes is private. It is carried out between private parties in their private capacity. By every definition it's private trade. Common sense should tell you that too. No one has a right to 1) force people to give up their privacy and divulge details about the private interaction and 2) throw people in prison if they refuse to disclose this private information or if they refuse to hand over a share of the currency they are given in this private interaction. You believe in a world where people have no rights, especially if they engage in some private action that involves money changing hands (God forbid!). Typical socialist authoritarianism that rationalises imprisoning people by convincing himself ' there is no such thing as "private trade"'.
        vannevar 10y ago
        Behind every "private" trade is the power of the government to enforce the trade. Some contracts are unenforceable, and while you're free to make them, as a practical matter, they are generally avoided where there is an enforceable alternative. Because otherwise you're back in a state of nature, where the weak are at the mercy of the strong. That is the inescapable consequence of liberty as an absolute. And of course we have the power to force people to give up their privacy and divulge details about private interactions: we do it all the time in the context of child pornography, for instance. As individual human beings, we recognize that privacy (and personal liberty) are important values. But they are not absolutes, and we strive to balance them against our other interests, such as our health and happiness. A democratic government is the means that we use to distribute the responsibility for striking the balance. It might seem unfair that we don't get to choose at birth whether we want to live in modern society, where taxes are mandatory, or in a state of nature, where we are free of the terrible burden of taxation (and also free of any chance to amass a fortune, beyond a particularly large pile of coconuts). But there are many things we don't get to choose when we are born. Such is life.