4 ms·

Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? That is not the only way to view social progra

Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes.

conanbatt 9y ago
> Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? Its their intention by definition. Even by the coldest utilitarian model, a tax is about harming someone. > That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes. What is the other way? because I truly dont know any view that holds paying taxes as a benefit and receiving benefits as a harm.
- bittercynic 9y ago
  One alternative is that paying taxes is just contributing what you already owe in exchange for living in a society that has contributed to your wealth, and social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. The view I outlined is probably extreme by mainstream standards, but I think yours is, too.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    I think this view is as dogmatic as it is religious. It's like saying that you must give an offering to the church because God is looking after you and gave you everything you have. I don't recognize this "debt", let alone if you do "owe" society something, the state is not society the same way that the church is not God. > social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. Nobody stops you personally from helping the people that you considered harmed by the system. Ultimately, the people that believe in giving their resources to other people in need, dont require any help or force from the state. They can do it whenever and however they want. Taxes however, are compulsory. They don't care about what you think or why you do it.
    - bittercynic 9y ago
      I'm not sure how to read this. Are you expressing your opinion, or outlining an extreme position to demonstrate some principle?
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Does it matter? Whatever I think as an individual can be set aside for the principles exposed.
        bittercynic 9y ago
        I asked because I was interested. As for the God/church thing, I've heard that church helps some people connect with God. Similarly, government is an instrument that individuals can use as an interface of society. Both church and government may be severely flawed, but they both serve a purpose for many people.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        I'd say im mostly libertarian, but not totally. There is one fundamental difference between the (modern)church and the state. You can choose to not go to church. You cannot choose to not pay taxes. The fact that the state has the power to imprison you unless you pay is a powerful medium. And some would say you cannot get good results through bad means. The State is not society. It's a social construct and organization like any other, and society predates a functioning State. It is definitely not owed anything because its not a person. Its like saying you owe the earth, or the stars. The taxes however, are levied by people. How do people get the benefit to dispose of your income, against your consent, in the name of society?
        bittercynic 9y ago
        Thanks for taking the time to lay that out. I disagree with you about taxes thing, but I think what we have is a difference of opinion; I don't think your position is provably wrong. I hope you will grant that my position, that it can be just for the state to levy taxes for social programs and other programs, is also a valid opinion, and it is also not provably wrong. This may sound like copping out of the argument, but I don't think that's it. This is accepting that my political opinions are not the only valid positions, and I welcome disagreement and discussion.

Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes.

conanbatt 9y ago

> Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? Its their intention by definition. Even by the coldest utilitarian model, a tax is about harming someone. > That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes. What is the other way? because I truly dont know any view that holds paying taxes as a benefit and receiving benefits as a harm.

bittercynic 9y ago
One alternative is that paying taxes is just contributing what you already owe in exchange for living in a society that has contributed to your wealth, and social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. The view I outlined is probably extreme by mainstream standards, but I think yours is, too.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  I think this view is as dogmatic as it is religious. It's like saying that you must give an offering to the church because God is looking after you and gave you everything you have. I don't recognize this "debt", let alone if you do "owe" society something, the state is not society the same way that the church is not God. > social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. Nobody stops you personally from helping the people that you considered harmed by the system. Ultimately, the people that believe in giving their resources to other people in need, dont require any help or force from the state. They can do it whenever and however they want. Taxes however, are compulsory. They don't care about what you think or why you do it.
  - bittercynic 9y ago
    I'm not sure how to read this. Are you expressing your opinion, or outlining an extreme position to demonstrate some principle?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Does it matter? Whatever I think as an individual can be set aside for the principles exposed.
      - bittercynic 9y ago
        I asked because I was interested. As for the God/church thing, I've heard that church helps some people connect with God. Similarly, government is an instrument that individuals can use as an interface of society. Both church and government may be severely flawed, but they both serve a purpose for many people.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        I'd say im mostly libertarian, but not totally. There is one fundamental difference between the (modern)church and the state. You can choose to not go to church. You cannot choose to not pay taxes. The fact that the state has the power to imprison you unless you pay is a powerful medium. And some would say you cannot get good results through bad means. The State is not society. It's a social construct and organization like any other, and society predates a functioning State. It is definitely not owed anything because its not a person. Its like saying you owe the earth, or the stars. The taxes however, are levied by people. How do people get the benefit to dispose of your income, against your consent, in the name of society?
        bittercynic 9y ago
        Thanks for taking the time to lay that out. I disagree with you about taxes thing, but I think what we have is a difference of opinion; I don't think your position is provably wrong. I hope you will grant that my position, that it can be just for the state to levy taxes for social programs and other programs, is also a valid opinion, and it is also not provably wrong. This may sound like copping out of the argument, but I don't think that's it. This is accepting that my political opinions are not the only valid positions, and I welcome disagreement and discussion.