4 ms·

I think what oleganza is trying to say here is that while unemployment may indeed exist under any system, what we have to understand is that by creating laws an

by snitko 13y ago

I think what oleganza is trying to say here is that while unemployment may indeed exist under any system, what we have to understand is that by creating laws and regulations to fight it, we really are doing it at someone else's expense. For instance, if an automobile factory produces cars and people don't really need so many cars, then this factory fires workers. If it's impossible or difficult to fire them, then this means the cost goes on to consumers and prices of cars go up. The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs. There are plenty of job positions that can't be filled because there are no people willing and/or skillful enough to fill them. The reason unemployment exists in the wild (with no regulation) is because the market needs to readjust itself to produce something people want in the quantities people want. When government interferes into this process, it only delays this adjustment.

Weltan 13y ago
Right, and I guess what I'm saying is that it's fine to do so at someone else's expense. But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed. If you believe it is illegitimate, that's ultimately your problem and you live in a reality where most people do not agree with you. That's fine, we can disagree and move on. But the problem comes in when unsubstantiated statements come into this. I don't see any evidence presented at all that what you go on to say in your last paragraph is true. "The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs." I'm sorry, but my country's unemployment rate is 22%[1], and we have no welfare state worth mentioning. The minimum wage is under $1/h, and there are no restrictions on hiring nor on firing. We've had this same rate of unemployment for decades with constant economic liberalization. Now, I suppose under oleganza's view, we can still blame the very fact that government (anywhere) exists on this problem, but at a certain point you cannot blame the government anymore. [1]http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.aspx?rptKey=indId%3d240100IND01%2635%3d6%266%3d1%2c2%2c3%2c4%262%3d%23last%232%2640%3d15%2cL15-64%26sAreaId%3d240100%26dType%3dName%26lType%3dEnglish http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.as...
- snitko 13y ago
  If people weren't afraid an IRS agent could come and take away their possessions and if they refused to cooperate a policeman could come and handcuff them, we would see whom most people would agree with. It's like saying "but my wife agrees with me that beating women is okay" all the while knowing you would beat her even more if she disagrees.
- oleganza 13y ago
  "unsubstantiated statements" you say? How about "But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed"? Basically, you are okay if people who disagree with your opinion can be beaten and their money confiscated. This does not say anything good of you as a fellow human being.
  - Weltan 13y ago
    Yeah, but such a statement requires no actual evidence. I can tell you I'm okay with it, because that's a fact about myself. The fact that your view is incompatible just shows that I don't consider all opinions morally valid, some are wrong. Just as to you it might appear that I am not 'good', it might appear to me that you're not 'good' if you refuse to pay taxes. It's a coincidence that my view is backed-up by society, but such is life. A libertarian might say to a person born blind, deaf and dumb who is unable to work: 'tough luck', I can say to a libertarian born in a society that forces them to support those less fortunate with taxes: 'tough luck.' I personally see nothing immoral about this.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - snitko 13y ago
      There's a larger implication, actually. You think it's moral to use force against people who disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the question is, the idea is that you are prepared to initiate the use of force, while libertarians are fundamentally opposed to that. I just think it's important to take our fellow human beings not as objects to be taxed, but as individuals to be convinced. If you think helping some group of people is a good idea - convince me, don't just steal from me. If you steal, this doesn't make you a single bit more moral.

by snitko 13y ago

Weltan 13y ago

Right, and I guess what I'm saying is that it's fine to do so at someone else's expense. But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed. If you believe it is illegitimate, that's ultimately your problem and you live in a reality where most people do not agree with you. That's fine, we can disagree and move on. But the problem comes in when unsubstantiated statements come into this. I don't see any evidence presented at all that what you go on to say in your last paragraph is true. "The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs." I'm sorry, but my country's unemployment rate is 22%[1], and we have no welfare state worth mentioning. The minimum wage is under $1/h, and there are no restrictions on hiring nor on firing. We've had this same rate of unemployment for decades with constant economic liberalization. Now, I suppose under oleganza's view, we can still blame the very fact that government (anywhere) exists on this problem, but at a certain point you cannot blame the government anymore. [1]http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.aspx?rptKey=indId%3d240100IND01%2635%3d6%266%3d1%2c2%2c3%2c4%262%3d%23last%232%2640%3d15%2cL15-64%26sAreaId%3d240100%26dType%3dName%26lType%3dEnglish http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.as...

snitko 13y ago
If people weren't afraid an IRS agent could come and take away their possessions and if they refused to cooperate a policeman could come and handcuff them, we would see whom most people would agree with. It's like saying "but my wife agrees with me that beating women is okay" all the while knowing you would beat her even more if she disagrees.
oleganza 13y ago
"unsubstantiated statements" you say? How about "But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed"? Basically, you are okay if people who disagree with your opinion can be beaten and their money confiscated. This does not say anything good of you as a fellow human being.
- Weltan 13y ago
  Yeah, but such a statement requires no actual evidence. I can tell you I'm okay with it, because that's a fact about myself. The fact that your view is incompatible just shows that I don't consider all opinions morally valid, some are wrong. Just as to you it might appear that I am not 'good', it might appear to me that you're not 'good' if you refuse to pay taxes. It's a coincidence that my view is backed-up by society, but such is life. A libertarian might say to a person born blind, deaf and dumb who is unable to work: 'tough luck', I can say to a libertarian born in a society that forces them to support those less fortunate with taxes: 'tough luck.' I personally see nothing immoral about this.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - snitko 13y ago
    There's a larger implication, actually. You think it's moral to use force against people who disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the question is, the idea is that you are prepared to initiate the use of force, while libertarians are fundamentally opposed to that. I just think it's important to take our fellow human beings not as objects to be taxed, but as individuals to be convinced. If you think helping some group of people is a good idea - convince me, don't just steal from me. If you steal, this doesn't make you a single bit more moral.