4 ms·

Sure, but justifying such post facto violates the officious intermedler doctrine.

DrScientist 3y ago
You might not have personally agreed - but society has ( as least in a democracy ). The whole point of centralised laws is it's much more efficient than negotiating with everyone you meet as to whether they will k!ll you and/or take or stuff or not. The scale of interactions in modern societies requires simplification of the management of those interactions - laws and enforcement of - what's allow or not is decided once, not every interaction.
- mminer237 3y ago
  Yeah, like I originally said, even if you don't agree with your taxes specifically, you agree to them as part of society by continuing to exist inside in it. By my philosophy, taxes are justified as long as you have the theoretical legal right to emigrate.
croes 3y ago
It was your parents decision which nationality you have, by accepting the nationality they accepted the rules and costs, so no officious intermedler. BTW without governments opayed through taxes things like officious intermedler doctrine wouldn't exist instead you get the good old nice-place-you-got-there-be-a-shame-if-anything-happened-to-it doctrine. Nice place you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it
fires10 3y ago
I don't understand this comment. Can someone explain it like I'm five?
- DrScientist 3y ago
  You can't give somebody something unrequested and then demand payment. Otherwise people could send you parcels you haven't ordered and then charge you. So he is saying he hasn't asked for the government services but is been forced to pay for them. The obvious answer is that by being a member of society you have implicitly agreed to it's rules - you can't pick and choose. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officious_intermeddler https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officious_intermeddler
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    The obvious answer is that by being a member of society you have implicitly agreed to it's rules That's such nonsense though, since as an individual you have virtually no impact on anything unless you were born into extreme wealth. No government that I'm aware of operates hypothecation (where you can specify what your taxes get used for), and voting for representatives based on policy commitments is crude, unreliable, and too slow to be adequately responsive. Nobody in the private sector has a job where they are only subject to performance review every 2/4/6 years. In the US, few people truly support the roughly $1 trillion annual cost of 'defense' and nobody thinks it's efficiently allocated, but any proposals to significantly cut that sum are political suicide so it's never going to happen. Much of our current political angst stems from people's intuitive awareness that their taxes are a real fact of life whereas their influence on the political process is largely notional.
    - DrScientist 3y ago
      > In the US.... I'd argue that the democratic ties between the people and the actions of the government in the US are extremely fragile - money is more important than people now in the US electoral system. Another American disease is to then extrapolate that malaise and assume the rest of the world is in a similar position. The solution isn't to dissolve society - that removes the only mechanism ( government ) that the majority have to control the powerful, further entrenching the power of the rich. The solution is to take money out of US politics and get it working again for the majority,
- lawlessone 3y ago
  I don't agree with them. but to simplify it: Imagine without asking you someone cleaned your car ,while you were shopping, and then demanded payment. They're comparing the services provided by taxes to this. It is silly. None of us consented to our parents / guardians raising us.. but for better or worse they did.
  - fires10 3y ago
    Thank you.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

You might not have personally agreed - but society has ( as least in a democracy ). The whole point of centralised laws is it's much more efficient than negotiating with everyone you meet as to whether they will k!ll you and/or take or stuff or not. The scale of interactions in modern societies requires simplification of the management of those interactions - laws and enforcement of - what's allow or not is decided once, not every interaction.

mminer237 3y ago
Yeah, like I originally said, even if you don't agree with your taxes specifically, you agree to them as part of society by continuing to exist inside in it. By my philosophy, taxes are justified as long as you have the theoretical legal right to emigrate.

croes 3y ago

It was your parents decision which nationality you have, by accepting the nationality they accepted the rules and costs, so no officious intermedler. BTW without governments opayed through taxes things like officious intermedler doctrine wouldn't exist instead you get the good old nice-place-you-got-there-be-a-shame-if-anything-happened-to-it doctrine. Nice place you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it

fires10 3y ago

I don't understand this comment. Can someone explain it like I'm five?

DrScientist 3y ago
You can't give somebody something unrequested and then demand payment. Otherwise people could send you parcels you haven't ordered and then charge you. So he is saying he hasn't asked for the government services but is been forced to pay for them. The obvious answer is that by being a member of society you have implicitly agreed to it's rules - you can't pick and choose. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officious_intermeddler https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officious_intermeddler
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  The obvious answer is that by being a member of society you have implicitly agreed to it's rules That's such nonsense though, since as an individual you have virtually no impact on anything unless you were born into extreme wealth. No government that I'm aware of operates hypothecation (where you can specify what your taxes get used for), and voting for representatives based on policy commitments is crude, unreliable, and too slow to be adequately responsive. Nobody in the private sector has a job where they are only subject to performance review every 2/4/6 years. In the US, few people truly support the roughly $1 trillion annual cost of 'defense' and nobody thinks it's efficiently allocated, but any proposals to significantly cut that sum are political suicide so it's never going to happen. Much of our current political angst stems from people's intuitive awareness that their taxes are a real fact of life whereas their influence on the political process is largely notional.
  - DrScientist 3y ago
    > In the US.... I'd argue that the democratic ties between the people and the actions of the government in the US are extremely fragile - money is more important than people now in the US electoral system. Another American disease is to then extrapolate that malaise and assume the rest of the world is in a similar position. The solution isn't to dissolve society - that removes the only mechanism ( government ) that the majority have to control the powerful, further entrenching the power of the rich. The solution is to take money out of US politics and get it working again for the majority,
lawlessone 3y ago
I don't agree with them. but to simplify it: Imagine without asking you someone cleaned your car ,while you were shopping, and then demanded payment. They're comparing the services provided by taxes to this. It is silly. None of us consented to our parents / guardians raising us.. but for better or worse they did.
- fires10 3y ago
  Thank you.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]