3 ms·

There's nothing extraordinary about the claim. I'd be surprised if there was anyone here who hasn't heard the Objectivist idea that the fruits of ones labor are

There's nothing extraordinary about the claim. I'd be surprised if there was anyone here who hasn't heard the Objectivist idea that the fruits of ones labor are ones own, and no man has the right to take it. It sounds now like what you want is not a reminder that there is a valid and consistent moral theory that supports this idea (just as there are alternate theories that arrive at different conclusions). And to be perfectly blunt, this is all that Krugman has done: voice one alternate theory, with no concrete support whatsoever (and that from a Nobel prize-winning economist!). It seems you're looking for nothing but political punditry. But to me, we should start with a moral code, and then work out how well we're tracking that code. You seem to want the opposite: calculate an answer, and then find a moral code that fits it.

kenjackson 16y ago
I've also heard of "an eye for an eye", but in a debate about the modern justice system its an absurd position to take. Likewise, your position that taxation in the US is wrong is an extraordinary claim, even with a pithy saying. Most conservatives would agree that some taxes are necessary. With that said, there's probably nothing that stops you from buying an island and enjoying all fhe fruits of labor you can create outside of the global economy. If you don't want to enjoy any investment that the state has made (past, present, and future), you can remove yourself from the state. But you're arguing that in the US any taxes are wrong, period. End of argument. That's an extraordinary claim in my book. And looks exactly like the form that trolling usually takes.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  your position that taxation in the US is wrong is an extraordinary claim If you scan back up the thread, you'll see that I haven't made any such claim. My statement was that this is a valid moral theory, and can't be dismissed out-of-hand (as you are continuing to do). That is, I haven't argued in agreement to the poster above, I've just called you (and others) out because you've shouted him down with negative votes, without actually addressing his viewpoint. Now that I think about it, this just might be the heart of what Krugman was referring to. If people are so dismissive of these concerns, then it should hardly be surprising that others having these values are left angry and frustrated.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Sorry, my argument about the extraordinary claim was against the poster who was downvoted, not you. I'm not sure what a "valid" moral theory is. What I do know is that he made a claim that no reasonable person that I know would agree with. And provided no evidence to back it up. This is trolling. When you say that Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is wrong, with no evidence, that is trolling. When you say Ruby is strictly superior to any other programming language, with no evidence, that is trolling. When you say that taxes are morally wrong, with no argument for it, that is trolling. And trolling gets people downvoted. That's my argument against you. :-)

kenjackson 16y ago

I've also heard of "an eye for an eye", but in a debate about the modern justice system its an absurd position to take. Likewise, your position that taxation in the US is wrong is an extraordinary claim, even with a pithy saying. Most conservatives would agree that some taxes are necessary. With that said, there's probably nothing that stops you from buying an island and enjoying all fhe fruits of labor you can create outside of the global economy. If you don't want to enjoy any investment that the state has made (past, present, and future), you can remove yourself from the state. But you're arguing that in the US any taxes are wrong, period. End of argument. That's an extraordinary claim in my book. And looks exactly like the form that trolling usually takes.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
your position that taxation in the US is wrong is an extraordinary claim If you scan back up the thread, you'll see that I haven't made any such claim. My statement was that this is a valid moral theory, and can't be dismissed out-of-hand (as you are continuing to do). That is, I haven't argued in agreement to the poster above, I've just called you (and others) out because you've shouted him down with negative votes, without actually addressing his viewpoint. Now that I think about it, this just might be the heart of what Krugman was referring to. If people are so dismissive of these concerns, then it should hardly be surprising that others having these values are left angry and frustrated.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Sorry, my argument about the extraordinary claim was against the poster who was downvoted, not you. I'm not sure what a "valid" moral theory is. What I do know is that he made a claim that no reasonable person that I know would agree with. And provided no evidence to back it up. This is trolling. When you say that Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is wrong, with no evidence, that is trolling. When you say Ruby is strictly superior to any other programming language, with no evidence, that is trolling. When you say that taxes are morally wrong, with no argument for it, that is trolling. And trolling gets people downvoted. That's my argument against you. :-)