4 ms·

>There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". Yeah

>There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". Yeah, one relies upon the threat of violence, the other one doesn't. I prefer minimizing the violent threats. >First, there's there question of effectiveness: A donation by one individual isn't going to solve society's ills, much better to have a plurality of people making smaller contributions. What specific "ill" are you trying to solve? Eliminate the national debt? Free college for all? Because taxing the wealthiest 1% at 100% isn't going to be enough. And if you can't specifically identify "society's ills" and an dollar amount needed to correct said "ills", then why should anyone be willing to contribute a dime? How about drone strikes in Yemen? Is that "solving society's ills"? I don't get to specify what programs my tax dollars fund, and I find it naive to think that taxes "help people", they certainly aren't helping the people in Yemen. >Then there's the human feeling as to what is 'fair'. Is it really fair that I solely tackle the burden of solving an ill while others in a similar position to me leach off my good will?'. Is it really good will at all if someone puts a gun to your head? If you really care and want help someone do you really give a rat's ass what other people are doing? Do you donate blood and then think "Why didn't that asshole over there donate their blood? Why is it on ME to donate blood! That's it!! I've had it, if they aren't going to donate then neither will I!". >For this reasons and others people are more likely to say 'we should all pay more' rather than just saying 'take a pile of my cash''. Maybe others will follow suit if they lead by example. Maybe the billionaire's who want to pay more taxes should just cut a check to the IRS and persuade their billionaire friends to do the same, rather than threatening them with violence.

Angostura 7y ago
> Yeah, one relies upon the threat of violence, I'm similarly sick of this tedious "threat of violence" trope. Any action decided collectively by the community and enforced is a threat of violence, yes? Regulations to stop you torturing puppies? "That's bad - it's a threat of violence" Regulations to stop you littering in national parks? "Threat of violence" Speed limits, requirements that car manufactures meet minimum safety regulations, laws that stop chemical companies dumping in aquifers? - "threats of violence". It's a cheap rhetorical trick and it doesn't make a case sound compelling.
- hitpointdrew 7y ago
  What happens if you don't pay your taxes? People whit guns come and throw you in jail. It isn't a "cheap rhetorical trick" it is the fucking truth. >Regulations to stop you torturing puppies? "That's bad - it's a threat of violence" I am not saying "never use a threat of violence". I am simply saying that if it isn't appropriate for an individual to use the threat of violence, then it isn't appropriate for the government to do so. Would I personally use violence to stop a robbery, sure, would I personally use violence to fund the arts, no.
  - Angostura 7y ago
    > I am simply saying that if it isn't appropriate for an individual to use the threat of violence, then it isn't appropriate for the government to do so. So. Was it, for example, reasonable for governments to regulate production of CFCs to attempt to stop the growth of the ozone holes at the poles? I presume you wouldn't go out and smash the face of a person for selling a fridge. I presume therefore you would be against any kind of environmental regulation. Are you really going to argue that you beating a fisherman for hauling in too much cod is exactly comparable to the government setting fishing quotas to avoid a species pretty much extinct?

Angostura 7y ago

> Yeah, one relies upon the threat of violence, I'm similarly sick of this tedious "threat of violence" trope. Any action decided collectively by the community and enforced is a threat of violence, yes? Regulations to stop you torturing puppies? "That's bad - it's a threat of violence" Regulations to stop you littering in national parks? "Threat of violence" Speed limits, requirements that car manufactures meet minimum safety regulations, laws that stop chemical companies dumping in aquifers? - "threats of violence". It's a cheap rhetorical trick and it doesn't make a case sound compelling.

hitpointdrew 7y ago
What happens if you don't pay your taxes? People whit guns come and throw you in jail. It isn't a "cheap rhetorical trick" it is the fucking truth. >Regulations to stop you torturing puppies? "That's bad - it's a threat of violence" I am not saying "never use a threat of violence". I am simply saying that if it isn't appropriate for an individual to use the threat of violence, then it isn't appropriate for the government to do so. Would I personally use violence to stop a robbery, sure, would I personally use violence to fund the arts, no.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > I am simply saying that if it isn't appropriate for an individual to use the threat of violence, then it isn't appropriate for the government to do so. So. Was it, for example, reasonable for governments to regulate production of CFCs to attempt to stop the growth of the ozone holes at the poles? I presume you wouldn't go out and smash the face of a person for selling a fridge. I presume therefore you would be against any kind of environmental regulation. Are you really going to argue that you beating a fisherman for hauling in too much cod is exactly comparable to the government setting fishing quotas to avoid a species pretty much extinct?