4 ms·

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 govern

by 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.
    - Weltan 13y ago
      I don't see this 'larger implication'. Where is this objective moral scale I can look at? The one that'll tell me that I'm more moral than you, or you're more moral than me? I don't claim I'm more moral than you, I do claim we have differing morality. My morals tell me that it is okay to 'initiate force' in certain circumstances, the fact that your morals tell you the opposite has no bearings on me nor on any objective scale of morals you could point to. You've taken a principle and put it on some sort of pedestal which allows you to point to it and say: if you violate that, you're immoral. I can do the same with any given principle and neither of us comes out on top morally, nor will we ever. The unfortunate thing about your principle is that it is weak from a force perspective: in order for you to stay true to your morals, you cannot initiate force, in order for me to stay true to my morals, I can do so and I can enable the government to do so as well.
snitko 13y ago
As for why unemployment exists in the US... Please factor in illegal employment created by government criminalizing drugs and other things (prostitution or gambling, for instance). Factor in minimum wage, which allows some people to earn more at the expense of those who are not employed at all. Factor in military men coming back from wars not being able to find jobs, because government used them and threw away. Factor in people who are not able to start certain businesses because it's expensive to obtain licences. So it's not just restrictions on firing people. It's so much more.
- Weltan 13y ago
  The market is a system constantly re-evaluating itself to reach equilibrium. It's a very weak view of the market which takes away from it the ability to take into account government 'interference'. Indeed, most governments don't interfere too often, prostitution and gambling have been illegal for decades in the US (legal where I live, however). I don't need to factor these things in, because the market has already factored them in. What government interference implies is a sort of Old-Testament God, who constantly interferes with its subjects. Governments try their best to interfere very little, they make sure inflation stays low-ish, they don't suddenly change economic policy except in crises. Government "interference" (the better word you might use is 'existence', since this is what I think you mean) is an ever-present fact of the market and the market has always taken it into account.
  - snitko 13y ago
    I just pointed out a number of sources of unemployment originating from government interference and you just replied with "but government interference always existed, therefore it cannot be a reason for unemployment". That's not an argument.
    - Weltan 13y ago
      Did I say that? I didn't realize I made such a categorical statement! I thought I said that the market already takes the government into account, not that the government cannot be a reason for unemployment. The government certainly could be a reason for unemployment, but that doesn't mean it is always the reason for unemployment, nor does it mean that proper regulation necessarily leads to lowered employment.

by Weltan 13y ago

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.
  - Weltan 13y ago
    I don't see this 'larger implication'. Where is this objective moral scale I can look at? The one that'll tell me that I'm more moral than you, or you're more moral than me? I don't claim I'm more moral than you, I do claim we have differing morality. My morals tell me that it is okay to 'initiate force' in certain circumstances, the fact that your morals tell you the opposite has no bearings on me nor on any objective scale of morals you could point to. You've taken a principle and put it on some sort of pedestal which allows you to point to it and say: if you violate that, you're immoral. I can do the same with any given principle and neither of us comes out on top morally, nor will we ever. The unfortunate thing about your principle is that it is weak from a force perspective: in order for you to stay true to your morals, you cannot initiate force, in order for me to stay true to my morals, I can do so and I can enable the government to do so as well.

snitko 13y ago

As for why unemployment exists in the US... Please factor in illegal employment created by government criminalizing drugs and other things (prostitution or gambling, for instance). Factor in minimum wage, which allows some people to earn more at the expense of those who are not employed at all. Factor in military men coming back from wars not being able to find jobs, because government used them and threw away. Factor in people who are not able to start certain businesses because it's expensive to obtain licences. So it's not just restrictions on firing people. It's so much more.

Weltan 13y ago
The market is a system constantly re-evaluating itself to reach equilibrium. It's a very weak view of the market which takes away from it the ability to take into account government 'interference'. Indeed, most governments don't interfere too often, prostitution and gambling have been illegal for decades in the US (legal where I live, however). I don't need to factor these things in, because the market has already factored them in. What government interference implies is a sort of Old-Testament God, who constantly interferes with its subjects. Governments try their best to interfere very little, they make sure inflation stays low-ish, they don't suddenly change economic policy except in crises. Government "interference" (the better word you might use is 'existence', since this is what I think you mean) is an ever-present fact of the market and the market has always taken it into account.
- snitko 13y ago
  I just pointed out a number of sources of unemployment originating from government interference and you just replied with "but government interference always existed, therefore it cannot be a reason for unemployment". That's not an argument.
  - Weltan 13y ago
    Did I say that? I didn't realize I made such a categorical statement! I thought I said that the market already takes the government into account, not that the government cannot be a reason for unemployment. The government certainly could be a reason for unemployment, but that doesn't mean it is always the reason for unemployment, nor does it mean that proper regulation necessarily leads to lowered employment.