4 ms·
It's interesting that you invoke Adam Smith, given how strongly in favor of redistributive policies he was. EDIT: As for specific things that taxes should pay
by rosser 9y ago
It's interesting that you invoke Adam Smith, given how strongly in favor of redistributive policies he was.
EDIT: As for specific things that taxes should pay for, no, I don't think there's a lot of room for agreement. I know a nontrivial number of people who sincerely believe that roads, for example, should be wholly privatized. You and I may think fire departments and roads matter, but we aren't the only parties to that debate. We don't get to decide for them.
I personally don't want the fruits of my labor, in the form of taxes, being used to bomb civilians (specifically, non-combatants) on the other side of the planet. I don't get that say, and I find murder far more repugnant than "theft".
How do you reconcile that? Should I be "forced" to pay for blowing up women and children over there, while you think having to materially support the poorest in your own country is an imposition — even immoral? How is that in any way in keeping with a philosophy of individual liberty?
- golergka 9y ago> It's interesting that you invoke Adam Smith, given how strongly in favor of redistributive policies he was. That's exactly my point - he used lighthouses as an example for redistribution through government, and he was famously wrong, as lighthouses were not primarily built by the government. So this is very similar to using fire departments now. > How do you reconcile that? Should I be "forced" to pay for blowing up women and children over there, while you think having to materially support the poorest in your own country is an imposition — even immoral? How is that in any way in keeping with a philosophy of individual liberty? I see a lot of criticism to US military involvement that takes only lost lives into account and does not even try to calculate all the lives, lost and saved, to see if utility function ends up above or below zero. Therefore, I can't take this arguments seriously.
- rosser 9y agoThat you apparently think there's a "utility function" in play in bombing civilians suggests to me there is no meaningful possibility of dialogue here. Between that and your position that taxes which are used to support the least fortunate among us are "theft" (but not the taxes used to buy bombs — meaning that it's how they're used, not whether they're collected at all, that you take issue with), I can only conclude that other people are somehow "lesser" in your worldview. I so utterly can't relate to that, that we may as well be speaking different languages.
- golergka 9y ago> I can only conclude that other people are somehow "lesser" in your worldview Curious - how did you come to such a strange conclusion?