3 ms·

But your medical care increases my burden. Washing your brain off the road becomes someone else's emotional burden.

by EdwardDiego 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago
Voting for taxes doesn't imply you now own the people who benefit from those taxes.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  I’m not sure the right people feel the same way about this. I recall that after the 2008ish bailouts many politicians felt they were entitled to own banks, even the ones who did not ask for and had repaid the money.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  Seeing as there's no chance of voting for "no taxes" because that's not how effective governments in the real world work (although I wish the Seasteaders, Cryptoland[0], and the LPD[1] the best of luck), your point is rather moot. A quick synopsis of my wall of words below - stop calling mutual obligation "ownership", I feel that's a bit of a silly framing. No matter how high or low our tax rates, you live in a society. Societies were evolved by our ancestors because they kept clever apes (with no natural weapons and infants that have the animal world's longest periods of helplessness due to the compromises involved in big brains and pelvises) alive better than not having them. But a society comes with a) rights and b) responsibilities. The two are not an OR, nor XOR, but very much AND. The government mandating you wear a helmet on a motorcycle is because far too many people focus on their rights only, and consider their responsibilities an onerous imposition - and then impose the consequences of their choices on the rest of society. If you feel you have no obligations to the rest of society, you're wrong in my opinion, but you are always free, of course, to opt out entirely, go and build a hut in the boreal forests (tropical is also an option, but might be too many societies living in them for your tastes), and live fully free. And because Terry Pratchett is eminently quotable in these areas: "Freedom may be mankind's natural state, but so is sitting in a tree eating your dinner while it is still wriggling." Perhaps I can give you an example not involving brains being hosed off roadways. As our society is a big fan of property rights, a mutual obligation of "don't steal my stuff, and I won't steal yours" is core to it. Even the USSR, despite it's views on private property, weren't fans of stealing from other members of your society. It's a very old value in human societies, I mean, it's in the top ten Commandments from YHWH, and we're going back a few thousand years there. Previously it was enforced by people of the tribe throwing stones while the priests watched, these days it's enforced by the government, a collective figment we formed to represent our society's collective desires and values as best we can (very imperfectly, but as the old saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others we've tried). If I choose to steal your stuff, agents of the government (paid for by the taxes of yourself and other members of society) will try to apprehend me, return your stuff, and punish me for violating a mutual obligation inherent to our society. But, to go full reductio ad absurdum here, why should the fact of your paying taxes constrain my choice to steal your stuff? Why should my choices be constrained when they impact you? Do you think you own me? If not, please send me location details, times of day you're not at home, alarm codes, the favourite foods of any pets which might be defensive when I come calling unexpectedly so I can make friends before trying to carry your TV out, and which valuables have the highest market value, just so I can reaffirm that you and I claim no ownership of each other or our respective actions. TL;DR - it's not ownership, it's mutual obligation. It's central to being a social animal, and we're social animals because that's how we evolved. PS - I was trying to be understanding of your POV, as I had assumed you'd lived in the USSR based on your repeated comparisons to it. Then I found out that you're Apple Pie American, so now I'm just a bit sad that you're resorting to Soviet Russia for the sake of argument. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/16/cryptoland-runs-aground-as-12m-bid-to-buy-fiji-island-for-resort-falls-through https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/16/cryptolan... [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Societies that we actually have today did not evolve around "mutual obligations". They evolved as a tool of control of production by the elites, to enable exploitation of laborers. You may argue that social democracies are different, but they retain the hierarchical power structures from those older times. So even in a democracy, to conflate a government policy with social obligation is misleading at best.
    - EdwardDiego 5y ago
      Citation needed on that one :) How do you think elites took control, other than through mutual obligation? E.g., if you farmers grow the grain and give us some, us warriors will protect you from the other tribe who would burn your homes, enslave your children, and steal your food. Or, us priests will resolve your disputes according to our tribe's values, and intercede with the gods to ensure the rains come.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Originally, mostly by direct violence or threat thereof. The thing about extracting profits from other people is that you can invest them into more warriors, which can be used to subjugate and then control more people to extract profits from them etc. That's how most modern countries originated.
        EdwardDiego 5y ago
        On the violence imposed by nobility, I agree, the threat of violence, indeed, claiming the sole right to use violence, has been inherent to, well, being a noble, or being a government. That said, the nobility weren't monolithic, so Lord X being an asshole could find himself replaced, with the people's blessing, by Lord Y. Or, as seems to have happened several times in ancient history, people walked away from a complex society they found uncompelling. Societies splintered, sometimes just people gave up on it altogether and reverted to older patterns of life that involved less warring princes throwing your children into cenotes. And likewise, there was a limit to how much violence you could use sustainably - killing all your farmers was a bad move. Obviously, the people holding the monopoly on power gradually developed ideas to prevent this mobility, serfdom was a favourite during feudalism. But, mutual obligation still existed between commoner and noble. A noble who didn't defend his peasants when they were attacked was violating an ancient contract. Likewise, it wasn't commoners that were thrice-killed in PIE derived cultures - when you really needed to get the attention of the gods, you had to send someone of noble birth. And lastly, there were a bunch of peasant revolts. A few of them even succeeded. (Far too few, IMO, but bless them for trying). And they generally arose when the commoners felt that the nobles hadn't held up their end of the bargain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts It's a very complicated thing to try to generalise over, but am I seriously wrong to state that from tribal society upwards, that everyone in that society is expected to fulfill their obligations to others in that society? That was pretty much my main thesis :) Interesting side tangent on this - in areas where different societies (typically, but not always) sharing a culture fiercely fought each other, the concept of hospitality-as-an-unbreakable-law often developed. While it imposed mutual obligation on host and guest, it was also a mutual obligation between the societies - why would I extend hospitality to people from tribe X, if they never extend it to us? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts It's a very fascinating subject all round, and I think that trying to frame it all as exploiter and exploitee sacrifices a lot of nuance. As for "that's how countries developed", I rather disagree. The concept of a nation is very new in human history. Germany and Italy as countries were, well, I guess the prototype for the joke that a nation is a language with a navy.

But your medical care increases my burden. Washing your brain off the road becomes someone else's emotional burden.

WalterBright 5y ago

Voting for taxes doesn't imply you now own the people who benefit from those taxes.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
I’m not sure the right people feel the same way about this. I recall that after the 2008ish bailouts many politicians felt they were entitled to own banks, even the ones who did not ask for and had repaid the money.
EdwardDiego 5y ago
Seeing as there's no chance of voting for "no taxes" because that's not how effective governments in the real world work (although I wish the Seasteaders, Cryptoland[0], and the LPD[1] the best of luck), your point is rather moot. A quick synopsis of my wall of words below - stop calling mutual obligation "ownership", I feel that's a bit of a silly framing. No matter how high or low our tax rates, you live in a society. Societies were evolved by our ancestors because they kept clever apes (with no natural weapons and infants that have the animal world's longest periods of helplessness due to the compromises involved in big brains and pelvises) alive better than not having them. But a society comes with a) rights and b) responsibilities. The two are not an OR, nor XOR, but very much AND. The government mandating you wear a helmet on a motorcycle is because far too many people focus on their rights only, and consider their responsibilities an onerous imposition - and then impose the consequences of their choices on the rest of society. If you feel you have no obligations to the rest of society, you're wrong in my opinion, but you are always free, of course, to opt out entirely, go and build a hut in the boreal forests (tropical is also an option, but might be too many societies living in them for your tastes), and live fully free. And because Terry Pratchett is eminently quotable in these areas: "Freedom may be mankind's natural state, but so is sitting in a tree eating your dinner while it is still wriggling." Perhaps I can give you an example not involving brains being hosed off roadways. As our society is a big fan of property rights, a mutual obligation of "don't steal my stuff, and I won't steal yours" is core to it. Even the USSR, despite it's views on private property, weren't fans of stealing from other members of your society. It's a very old value in human societies, I mean, it's in the top ten Commandments from YHWH, and we're going back a few thousand years there. Previously it was enforced by people of the tribe throwing stones while the priests watched, these days it's enforced by the government, a collective figment we formed to represent our society's collective desires and values as best we can (very imperfectly, but as the old saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others we've tried). If I choose to steal your stuff, agents of the government (paid for by the taxes of yourself and other members of society) will try to apprehend me, return your stuff, and punish me for violating a mutual obligation inherent to our society. But, to go full reductio ad absurdum here, why should the fact of your paying taxes constrain my choice to steal your stuff? Why should my choices be constrained when they impact you? Do you think you own me? If not, please send me location details, times of day you're not at home, alarm codes, the favourite foods of any pets which might be defensive when I come calling unexpectedly so I can make friends before trying to carry your TV out, and which valuables have the highest market value, just so I can reaffirm that you and I claim no ownership of each other or our respective actions. TL;DR - it's not ownership, it's mutual obligation. It's central to being a social animal, and we're social animals because that's how we evolved. PS - I was trying to be understanding of your POV, as I had assumed you'd lived in the USSR based on your repeated comparisons to it. Then I found out that you're Apple Pie American, so now I'm just a bit sad that you're resorting to Soviet Russia for the sake of argument. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/16/cryptoland-runs-aground-as-12m-bid-to-buy-fiji-island-for-resort-falls-through https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/16/cryptolan... [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...
- int_19h 5y ago
  Societies that we actually have today did not evolve around "mutual obligations". They evolved as a tool of control of production by the elites, to enable exploitation of laborers. You may argue that social democracies are different, but they retain the hierarchical power structures from those older times. So even in a democracy, to conflate a government policy with social obligation is misleading at best.
  - EdwardDiego 5y ago
    Citation needed on that one :) How do you think elites took control, other than through mutual obligation? E.g., if you farmers grow the grain and give us some, us warriors will protect you from the other tribe who would burn your homes, enslave your children, and steal your food. Or, us priests will resolve your disputes according to our tribe's values, and intercede with the gods to ensure the rains come.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Originally, mostly by direct violence or threat thereof. The thing about extracting profits from other people is that you can invest them into more warriors, which can be used to subjugate and then control more people to extract profits from them etc. That's how most modern countries originated.
      - EdwardDiego 5y ago
        On the violence imposed by nobility, I agree, the threat of violence, indeed, claiming the sole right to use violence, has been inherent to, well, being a noble, or being a government. That said, the nobility weren't monolithic, so Lord X being an asshole could find himself replaced, with the people's blessing, by Lord Y. Or, as seems to have happened several times in ancient history, people walked away from a complex society they found uncompelling. Societies splintered, sometimes just people gave up on it altogether and reverted to older patterns of life that involved less warring princes throwing your children into cenotes. And likewise, there was a limit to how much violence you could use sustainably - killing all your farmers was a bad move. Obviously, the people holding the monopoly on power gradually developed ideas to prevent this mobility, serfdom was a favourite during feudalism. But, mutual obligation still existed between commoner and noble. A noble who didn't defend his peasants when they were attacked was violating an ancient contract. Likewise, it wasn't commoners that were thrice-killed in PIE derived cultures - when you really needed to get the attention of the gods, you had to send someone of noble birth. And lastly, there were a bunch of peasant revolts. A few of them even succeeded. (Far too few, IMO, but bless them for trying). And they generally arose when the commoners felt that the nobles hadn't held up their end of the bargain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts It's a very complicated thing to try to generalise over, but am I seriously wrong to state that from tribal society upwards, that everyone in that society is expected to fulfill their obligations to others in that society? That was pretty much my main thesis :) Interesting side tangent on this - in areas where different societies (typically, but not always) sharing a culture fiercely fought each other, the concept of hospitality-as-an-unbreakable-law often developed. While it imposed mutual obligation on host and guest, it was also a mutual obligation between the societies - why would I extend hospitality to people from tribe X, if they never extend it to us? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality#Global_concepts It's a very fascinating subject all round, and I think that trying to frame it all as exploiter and exploitee sacrifices a lot of nuance. As for "that's how countries developed", I rather disagree. The concept of a nation is very new in human history. Germany and Italy as countries were, well, I guess the prototype for the joke that a nation is a language with a navy.