4 ms·

"Or is there some idea of libertarian "efficiency" that this is all going to produce?" There's efficiency to be had in aligning costs with benefits. As a socie

by natrius 14y ago

"Or is there some idea of libertarian "efficiency" that this is all going to produce?" There's efficiency to be had in aligning costs with benefits. As a society we probably pay for more Classics degrees than we should. Beyond that, minimizing the amount of money that is forcibly taken from people is inherently good. I agree with the ends that most social democrats seek. I just think they should be funded voluntarily, perhaps with some help from the government to inform people where additional funds would lead to the greatest benefit. I don't know if such a system would be practical, but it seems like the ideal we should strive for instead of using force as a first resort.

angersock 14y ago
Beyond that, minimizing the amount of money that is forcibly taken from people is inherently good. You'll have to elaborate on this a little better, because it seems misinformed. For example, it would suggest that saving Warren Buffet a billion dollars while taking fifty grand from a hundred poor families is preferred. And that's horseshit.
- natrius 14y ago
  If Warren Buffet is currently having a billion dollars taken from him that goes to a hundred poor families, stopping that is good. Would I rather forcibly take some of Warren Buffet's money to feed some poor families instead of letting them starve? Sure. But those aren't our only choices. Playing Robin Hood is immoral and should be a last resort.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    I guess I don't see taxes as particularly immoral. Of all the things the state can impose on people, having people who've already made some decent money chip in a percentage for the common good seems low on the list. Even (unpaid) jury duty seems more objectionable than that. Though I do share some of your concerns about "force". I think criminal sanctions are resorted to too quickly for a lot of things, both taxes and other infractions (any time you lie to the government, or otherwise do something it doesn't like). I'd rather emphasize civil remedies to collect.

by natrius 14y ago

angersock 14y ago

Beyond that, minimizing the amount of money that is forcibly taken from people is inherently good. You'll have to elaborate on this a little better, because it seems misinformed. For example, it would suggest that saving Warren Buffet a billion dollars while taking fifty grand from a hundred poor families is preferred. And that's horseshit.

natrius 14y ago
If Warren Buffet is currently having a billion dollars taken from him that goes to a hundred poor families, stopping that is good. Would I rather forcibly take some of Warren Buffet's money to feed some poor families instead of letting them starve? Sure. But those aren't our only choices. Playing Robin Hood is immoral and should be a last resort.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I guess I don't see taxes as particularly immoral. Of all the things the state can impose on people, having people who've already made some decent money chip in a percentage for the common good seems low on the list. Even (unpaid) jury duty seems more objectionable than that. Though I do share some of your concerns about "force". I think criminal sanctions are resorted to too quickly for a lot of things, both taxes and other infractions (any time you lie to the government, or otherwise do something it doesn't like). I'd rather emphasize civil remedies to collect.