6 ms·

> There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes Yes, yes there is. The quotes of a single person do not change this fact. The greatest good for th

> There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes Yes, yes there is. The quotes of a single person do not change this fact. The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. Witholding taxes for the purposes of greed is immoral and unpatriotic.

noblethrasher 13y ago
> The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state It might be the case that under every moral theory[1] people have an obligation to avoid minimizing their taxes, but as it stands you are begging the question that we should all be utilitarians. [1]: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html
josh2600 13y ago
I wish people didn't yell out dogmatic axioms like this. It is your opinion that the greatest good is achieved through the state; I can provide counterexamples where this has historically not been true. When it comes to taxes, I believe everyone can, and will, do everything they can to avoid paying taxes they don't believe they owe. If you want people to pay more taxes, tell them to pay more taxes by changing the law; it's unrealistic to imagine anyone voluntarily contributing more to the state than necessary.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > I wish people didn't yell out dogmatic axioms like this. It is your opinion that the greatest good is achieved through the state; I can provide counterexamples where this has historically not been true. But we're not discussing historically. We're discussing modern first world economies where the poor have been incessantly squeezed by 'free market' ideology. The NHS is a refreshing example of how to do things right.
  - josh2600 13y ago
    > But we're not discussing historically. We're discussing modern first world economies where the poor have been incessantly squeezed by 'free market' ideology. Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. My main disagreement is your assertion that your opinion is fact.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      > Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. Could you please explain how funding the NHS, a system helping millions and costing less than the average American already pays in taxes, is somehow immoral or wrong or warned against by history? Can you suggest some strict lessons that show how the NHS can't possibly exist as it does?
      - josh2600 13y ago
        Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? I am not going to answer a strawman attack; the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent. Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst. Your response is to cite one particular organization that has performed well which does nothing to validate or refute my argument. In short, no straw men please.
        hahainternet 13y ago
        > Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? > the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent So I can't point out a historic success story to bolster my point, but you can point out historic failures to bolster yours? It seems like you're stacking the deck in your favour there. > Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst That was not my position. In the US or the UK, the government is the ideal means to reduce suffering as they already have programs doing just this that are short on funding. On Mars, or in Africa, or in the 1840s this perhaps would not be true. It is however true now.
gyardley 13y ago
Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any given thing, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is much more likely to happen when it's done outside large monopolistic organizations like the government. We do need government, but we only need it for things the rest of society isn't going to do independently. Getting the government involved in something the rest of us are perfectly capable of doing ourselves isn't patriotism, it's lighting money on fire.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any given thing, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is much more likely to happen when it's done outside large monopolistic organizations like the government. The NHS is one of the most efficient health care systems in the world and costs less than the average US citizen already pays in medical taxation. It was one of the world's largest employers too. The UK government has recently started trying to split this up into smaller private groups. Everything has failed miserably, private companies have stripped the poor of benefits to force them into work with no success. I'm not saying the state is the ONLY way to go, but it's a uniquely American belief that people should help themselves and maybe each other, but not all working together.
  - gyardley 13y ago
    I'm not American. I will say that civil society is far, far more varied than the either/or choice of the individual acting alone or the entire nation acting together through the government. Local communities, associations, congregations, and yes, even businesses have important roles to play and can respond far more effectively to local conditions than an administrative state. I can't speak to your experiences with the NHS, since I've got limited experience with England. I hope that it treats you better than my grandparents have been treated by the analogous system in Canada.
    - 13y ago
thatswrong0 13y ago
> The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. Then why doesn't North Korea have the highest standards of living? In reality, the huge increases in standards of living in the past century has been due to incredible technological progress driven by free enterprise and "greed".
- dagw 13y ago
  Then why doesn't North Korea have the highest standards of living? Because North Korea has made no attempt to pursue "The greatest good for the greatest number". Difference between "necessary" and "sufficient", and all that.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > In reality, the huge increases in standards of living in the past century has been due to incredible technological progress driven by free enterprise and "greed". Citation needed. Trickle down economics has been roundly disproven again and again. Yes the rich do want to get richer, but so does everybody. The state pays for an AWFUL lot of scientific research already and I would much rather put another billion into NASA than into research on how to lie in advertising to sell hair cream more effectively.
  - thatswrong0 13y ago
    Do you use planes? Do you watch television? Do you have a computer or drive a car? Do you have electricity in your home? Do you live in a furnished and comfortable building? Do you have plenty of quality food in your pantry and refrigerator? Do you have and wear clothing and shoes? Do you love getting your cup of coffee in the morning? Do you buy goods on Amazon and at Walmart? Do you go out to restaurants occasionally? That was all rhetorical. My real question: do you honestly believe the government made that all happen? Mostly happen? Because the answer is no. You fly in planes because people were free to invest in and create airlines. You watch television because someone had the ingenuity to broadcast, receive, and display moving pictures, and other people were free to use this idea and freely pursue the enterprise of creating television and content to display on it. Etc. etc.
- 13y ago
eridius 13y ago
I take it from your statement here that you pay 100% of your income, minus basic living expenses, to the government? I must commend whomever owns the computer you're using for their generosity in letting you borrow it to write this comment. If by chance you do not, in fact, do this, then may I direct your attention to this page, where you may voluntarily contribute as much money as you want to the Treasury, for the purposes of reducing the public debt: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
- damon_c 13y ago
  I did this once. I sent them something like $50 just to see if there was anyone actually working in that office. They sent me a nice thank you letter.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  I'm not American. Having said that I do try and donate a lot of my income, at the moment most is private charity to friends but once they pay me back I'm sure I'll find someone else to help out. I can make some additional contributions but it's quite tough over here.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    > The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. Private charity ≠ the state. You should re-allocate your resources as per your statement in order to achieve the greatest good.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      I agree, but as I said, voluntary contributions are not that easy here. Besides my friends are in immediate need, I don't deduct anything from my taxes in order to help them. It's both private and public. The best of both worlds.
    - Steko 13y ago
      Extrapolating his comment about "not witholding taxes" to "you should give 100% of your salary in taxes" is needlessly pedantic. Reasonable people can guess what he meant.
sp332 13y ago
To quote Case in Neuromancer: "That is just so much bullshit." It is trivial to show that individual people helping each other out is more efficient than paying a government worker to do the same thing.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  It is? Then why did you not do so?
- r00fus 13y ago
  Three words: Economy of Scale. Governments and large organizations has it. You do not.
- 420truther 13y ago
  > It is trivial to show that individual people helping each other out is more efficient than paying a government worker to do the same thing. Go on then.
cynicalkane 13y ago
The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. The point of capitalism is that this is not true in the general case.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  Capitalism has no regard for the greater good, only the greater profit. Socialism shows that this is true in specific well researched cases, such as the NHS.
420truther 13y ago
Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim. -Clement Attlee

noblethrasher 13y ago

> The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state It might be the case that under every moral theory[1] people have an obligation to avoid minimizing their taxes, but as it stands you are begging the question that we should all be utilitarians. [1]: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html

josh2600 13y ago

I wish people didn't yell out dogmatic axioms like this. It is your opinion that the greatest good is achieved through the state; I can provide counterexamples where this has historically not been true. When it comes to taxes, I believe everyone can, and will, do everything they can to avoid paying taxes they don't believe they owe. If you want people to pay more taxes, tell them to pay more taxes by changing the law; it's unrealistic to imagine anyone voluntarily contributing more to the state than necessary.

hahainternet 13y ago
> I wish people didn't yell out dogmatic axioms like this. It is your opinion that the greatest good is achieved through the state; I can provide counterexamples where this has historically not been true. But we're not discussing historically. We're discussing modern first world economies where the poor have been incessantly squeezed by 'free market' ideology. The NHS is a refreshing example of how to do things right.
- josh2600 13y ago
  > But we're not discussing historically. We're discussing modern first world economies where the poor have been incessantly squeezed by 'free market' ideology. Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. My main disagreement is your assertion that your opinion is fact.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. Could you please explain how funding the NHS, a system helping millions and costing less than the average American already pays in taxes, is somehow immoral or wrong or warned against by history? Can you suggest some strict lessons that show how the NHS can't possibly exist as it does?
    - josh2600 13y ago
      Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? I am not going to answer a strawman attack; the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent. Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst. Your response is to cite one particular organization that has performed well which does nothing to validate or refute my argument. In short, no straw men please.
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        > Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? > the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent So I can't point out a historic success story to bolster my point, but you can point out historic failures to bolster yours? It seems like you're stacking the deck in your favour there. > Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst That was not my position. In the US or the UK, the government is the ideal means to reduce suffering as they already have programs doing just this that are short on funding. On Mars, or in Africa, or in the 1840s this perhaps would not be true. It is however true now.

gyardley 13y ago

Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any given thing, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is much more likely to happen when it's done outside large monopolistic organizations like the government. We do need government, but we only need it for things the rest of society isn't going to do independently. Getting the government involved in something the rest of us are perfectly capable of doing ourselves isn't patriotism, it's lighting money on fire.

hahainternet 13y ago
> Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any given thing, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is much more likely to happen when it's done outside large monopolistic organizations like the government. The NHS is one of the most efficient health care systems in the world and costs less than the average US citizen already pays in medical taxation. It was one of the world's largest employers too. The UK government has recently started trying to split this up into smaller private groups. Everything has failed miserably, private companies have stripped the poor of benefits to force them into work with no success. I'm not saying the state is the ONLY way to go, but it's a uniquely American belief that people should help themselves and maybe each other, but not all working together.
- gyardley 13y ago
  I'm not American. I will say that civil society is far, far more varied than the either/or choice of the individual acting alone or the entire nation acting together through the government. Local communities, associations, congregations, and yes, even businesses have important roles to play and can respond far more effectively to local conditions than an administrative state. I can't speak to your experiences with the NHS, since I've got limited experience with England. I hope that it treats you better than my grandparents have been treated by the analogous system in Canada.
  - 13y ago

thatswrong0 13y ago

> The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. Then why doesn't North Korea have the highest standards of living? In reality, the huge increases in standards of living in the past century has been due to incredible technological progress driven by free enterprise and "greed".

dagw 13y ago
Then why doesn't North Korea have the highest standards of living? Because North Korea has made no attempt to pursue "The greatest good for the greatest number". Difference between "necessary" and "sufficient", and all that.
hahainternet 13y ago
> In reality, the huge increases in standards of living in the past century has been due to incredible technological progress driven by free enterprise and "greed". Citation needed. Trickle down economics has been roundly disproven again and again. Yes the rich do want to get richer, but so does everybody. The state pays for an AWFUL lot of scientific research already and I would much rather put another billion into NASA than into research on how to lie in advertising to sell hair cream more effectively.
- thatswrong0 13y ago
  Do you use planes? Do you watch television? Do you have a computer or drive a car? Do you have electricity in your home? Do you live in a furnished and comfortable building? Do you have plenty of quality food in your pantry and refrigerator? Do you have and wear clothing and shoes? Do you love getting your cup of coffee in the morning? Do you buy goods on Amazon and at Walmart? Do you go out to restaurants occasionally? That was all rhetorical. My real question: do you honestly believe the government made that all happen? Mostly happen? Because the answer is no. You fly in planes because people were free to invest in and create airlines. You watch television because someone had the ingenuity to broadcast, receive, and display moving pictures, and other people were free to use this idea and freely pursue the enterprise of creating television and content to display on it. Etc. etc.
13y ago

eridius 13y ago

I take it from your statement here that you pay 100% of your income, minus basic living expenses, to the government? I must commend whomever owns the computer you're using for their generosity in letting you borrow it to write this comment. If by chance you do not, in fact, do this, then may I direct your attention to this page, where you may voluntarily contribute as much money as you want to the Treasury, for the purposes of reducing the public debt: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

damon_c 13y ago
I did this once. I sent them something like $50 just to see if there was anyone actually working in that office. They sent me a nice thank you letter.
hahainternet 13y ago
I'm not American. Having said that I do try and donate a lot of my income, at the moment most is private charity to friends but once they pay me back I'm sure I'll find someone else to help out. I can make some additional contributions but it's quite tough over here.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. Private charity ≠ the state. You should re-allocate your resources as per your statement in order to achieve the greatest good.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    I agree, but as I said, voluntary contributions are not that easy here. Besides my friends are in immediate need, I don't deduct anything from my taxes in order to help them. It's both private and public. The best of both worlds.
  - Steko 13y ago
    Extrapolating his comment about "not witholding taxes" to "you should give 100% of your salary in taxes" is needlessly pedantic. Reasonable people can guess what he meant.

sp332 13y ago

To quote Case in Neuromancer: "That is just so much bullshit." It is trivial to show that individual people helping each other out is more efficient than paying a government worker to do the same thing.

hahainternet 13y ago
It is? Then why did you not do so?
r00fus 13y ago
Three words: Economy of Scale. Governments and large organizations has it. You do not.
420truther 13y ago
> It is trivial to show that individual people helping each other out is more efficient than paying a government worker to do the same thing. Go on then.

cynicalkane 13y ago

The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. The point of capitalism is that this is not true in the general case.

hahainternet 13y ago
Capitalism has no regard for the greater good, only the greater profit. Socialism shows that this is true in specific well researched cases, such as the NHS.

420truther 13y ago

Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim. -Clement Attlee