4 ms·

And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's

by snitko 13y ago

And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. I'd say it is completely unfair that a government takes a portion of my income away from me and spends for what it considers to be important, while not giving me the slightest chance to spend it on things I consider to be an ultimate good for the world. Are people in the government somehow know the ultimate truth? Are they the ones who only do good, while taxpayers are evil?

zrail 13y ago
But you do have a huge opportunity to send your income to causes you deem worthy. If you're in the US you can generally donate up to 50% of your income to registered charities before paying federal taxes on it[1]. Society isn't free. You still have to contribute to the common good, but you do have a choice as to where a very large chunk of that contribution ends up. [1]: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Charitable-Contribution-Deductions http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Orga...
jahaja 13y ago
Alright, clearly a libertarian or similar with that kind of nose-dive into the problems of taxes while seeing no problem with the privileges of the wealthy. Regarding assumptions; I hope you realise how many assumption you made in your first post. Who's to say what's stealing, honesty, force etc. Do you really want to remove all the social responsibilities (taxes, fair wages etc) but keep all the privileges of the wealthy (private-property)?
- snitko 13y ago
  Fairness and force are concepts. Stealing is action. I hope you can see why the latter is much easier to define than the former.
  - jahaja 13y ago
    Why is that? For example: a number of libertarians would say that the government is stealing a part of their income. I wouldn't. And on opposite side one could argue that the owner(s) are stealing a part of the workers income.
    - snitko 13y ago
      1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. 2. When a government collects taxes, it does so threatening taxpayers with penalties and jail, even though those taxpayers never signed a contract saying they have to give a certain share of their income to the government.
      - jahaja 13y ago
        My point was that it's not clearly defined - not necessarily to get your opinion on the two examples. But anyway, that's such black and white view that it's close to dogmatism. I reckon I would be wasting my time if I'd continue to discuss.
        Glide 13y ago
        I agree totally. Arguments like these tend to forget that the balance of power is very unequal.
      - nzp 13y ago
        > 1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. I see. And if the worker decides he doesn't like working for any of the available employers, what happens then?
        snitko 13y ago
        That's still his decision. He has options: he may choose among different employers, who, may I remind you, compete with each other to get the best labor for the money. He may also educate himself and get a better paying job over time. Taxpayers have no options at all, except going to jail, not matter how educated or good they are.
sergiosgc 13y ago
> And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. I do. I pay a 50% tax rate, and I like it. I love that my country has virtually zero crime. I like that education is free. I absolutely love that medical care is free. Some tasks are better taken care by the society as a whole, not by individuals. If that society as a whole is the demonized government, so be it. As long as they are not too inneficient.
- snitko 13y ago
  So if your fellow citizen disagrees with you on what's fair, would you personally visit his house and extract that 50% out of his pocket?
  - scotty79 13y ago
    I think the proper way would be to take force buy his house and land for 50% of the value and transport him to the border of the country. Then kick him out. If you live somewhere you have to observe the rules of the society there. If the rule is 50% tax then that's it. "But I don't wanna." and "It's not fair." are not the valid points. It's not like it was in eastern block countries that you couldn't leave. Humans are social species. The reason you can own things is that people sort of agreed over the years that it's beneficial for the society to allow you to decide about what's to be done with some things. Within reasonable bounds of course. If you decide to slaughter the cow you own and use the remains to create biohazard you can expect to be disowned of some stuff pretty quickly.
    - snitko 13y ago
      So there are around 10% of libertarians in the US. Would you say it would be fair to give those libertarians 10% of the land the US owns and let them live there as a separate country? After all, they have no less rights for the land of the country you live in than you, they were born here.
      - 13y ago
jjoonathan 13y ago
> the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair Self-interest doesn't make someone incorrect. Isn't that one of the tenets of libertarianism? Also, it's not like the free market is some kind of objective tie-breaker. Outcomes in a market are highly sensitive to regulatory conditions. Before you suggest doing away with as many regulations as possible, consider that "regulatory conditions" can include things as basic as the definition of property, which is a problem that cannot be dodged in even the most libertarian of societies. Does society have a notion of intellectual property? If not, how do you propose to fund drug development? Can infrastructure be privately owned? If so, how do you stop natural monopolies from destroying competition? Should a company be allowed to buy up property surrounding your house and then ransom travel through their property off for all you are worth plus all you can borrow? The list goes on. > I'd say it is completely unfair that a government takes a portion of my income Whoa, there! You're assuming what you set out to prove: that the government's slice was yours to begin with. The social contract comes as a bundle deal. You "sign away" your tax dollars by being part of a society that provides services to you. Obviously no explicit consent is involved, but that's because it can't be involved. Voting is the best compromise we've been able to come up with. Even in a libertarian society, government provides one very important service that disproportionately benefits the rich: enforcement of property law. > Are people in the government somehow know the ultimate truth? No, the existence of government is a compromise between a free market that has flaws and a system of absolute control that also has flaws. We delegate responsibility for the areas where one system is hopelessly flawed to the other system (which merely has to do a better job, not a flawless job). Adam Smith himself acknowledged that the free market is not suited to provide certain services (police, infrastructure, military, etc). The goverment isn't aware of any "ultimate truth" here, but they aren't going to pull the whole "box you in and take all your money" stunt either.
- snitko 13y ago
  The are plenty of ideas and solutions that answer your questions. I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertarian ideas. I think the important thing to understand is that a government is not some magic cure for all the problems you mentioned. If you take a simple idea that a government is a monopoly on almost all of the things that it does, then you can go from here. Monopolies are mostly not good for consumers; and a huge one with an access to an unlimited force is certainly not.
Nursie 13y ago
>> And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. Nonsense. Our household is in the top 1% of households for earnings. We have no problem paying taxes. We'd like them to be lower for everyone (less waste) but we earn a lot and we contribute a lot to the world around us. This is a good thing.

by snitko 13y ago

zrail 13y ago

But you do have a huge opportunity to send your income to causes you deem worthy. If you're in the US you can generally donate up to 50% of your income to registered charities before paying federal taxes on it[1]. Society isn't free. You still have to contribute to the common good, but you do have a choice as to where a very large chunk of that contribution ends up. [1]: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Charitable-Contribution-Deductions http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Orga...

jahaja 13y ago

Alright, clearly a libertarian or similar with that kind of nose-dive into the problems of taxes while seeing no problem with the privileges of the wealthy. Regarding assumptions; I hope you realise how many assumption you made in your first post. Who's to say what's stealing, honesty, force etc. Do you really want to remove all the social responsibilities (taxes, fair wages etc) but keep all the privileges of the wealthy (private-property)?

snitko 13y ago
Fairness and force are concepts. Stealing is action. I hope you can see why the latter is much easier to define than the former.
- jahaja 13y ago
  Why is that? For example: a number of libertarians would say that the government is stealing a part of their income. I wouldn't. And on opposite side one could argue that the owner(s) are stealing a part of the workers income.
  - snitko 13y ago
    1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. 2. When a government collects taxes, it does so threatening taxpayers with penalties and jail, even though those taxpayers never signed a contract saying they have to give a certain share of their income to the government.
    - jahaja 13y ago
      My point was that it's not clearly defined - not necessarily to get your opinion on the two examples. But anyway, that's such black and white view that it's close to dogmatism. I reckon I would be wasting my time if I'd continue to discuss.
      - Glide 13y ago
        I agree totally. Arguments like these tend to forget that the balance of power is very unequal.
    - nzp 13y ago
      > 1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. I see. And if the worker decides he doesn't like working for any of the available employers, what happens then?
      - snitko 13y ago
        That's still his decision. He has options: he may choose among different employers, who, may I remind you, compete with each other to get the best labor for the money. He may also educate himself and get a better paying job over time. Taxpayers have no options at all, except going to jail, not matter how educated or good they are.

sergiosgc 13y ago

> And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. I do. I pay a 50% tax rate, and I like it. I love that my country has virtually zero crime. I like that education is free. I absolutely love that medical care is free. Some tasks are better taken care by the society as a whole, not by individuals. If that society as a whole is the demonized government, so be it. As long as they are not too inneficient.

snitko 13y ago
So if your fellow citizen disagrees with you on what's fair, would you personally visit his house and extract that 50% out of his pocket?
- scotty79 13y ago
  I think the proper way would be to take force buy his house and land for 50% of the value and transport him to the border of the country. Then kick him out. If you live somewhere you have to observe the rules of the society there. If the rule is 50% tax then that's it. "But I don't wanna." and "It's not fair." are not the valid points. It's not like it was in eastern block countries that you couldn't leave. Humans are social species. The reason you can own things is that people sort of agreed over the years that it's beneficial for the society to allow you to decide about what's to be done with some things. Within reasonable bounds of course. If you decide to slaughter the cow you own and use the remains to create biohazard you can expect to be disowned of some stuff pretty quickly.
  - snitko 13y ago
    So there are around 10% of libertarians in the US. Would you say it would be fair to give those libertarians 10% of the land the US owns and let them live there as a separate country? After all, they have no less rights for the land of the country you live in than you, they were born here.
    - 13y ago

jjoonathan 13y ago

> the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair Self-interest doesn't make someone incorrect. Isn't that one of the tenets of libertarianism? Also, it's not like the free market is some kind of objective tie-breaker. Outcomes in a market are highly sensitive to regulatory conditions. Before you suggest doing away with as many regulations as possible, consider that "regulatory conditions" can include things as basic as the definition of property, which is a problem that cannot be dodged in even the most libertarian of societies. Does society have a notion of intellectual property? If not, how do you propose to fund drug development? Can infrastructure be privately owned? If so, how do you stop natural monopolies from destroying competition? Should a company be allowed to buy up property surrounding your house and then ransom travel through their property off for all you are worth plus all you can borrow? The list goes on. > I'd say it is completely unfair that a government takes a portion of my income Whoa, there! You're assuming what you set out to prove: that the government's slice was yours to begin with. The social contract comes as a bundle deal. You "sign away" your tax dollars by being part of a society that provides services to you. Obviously no explicit consent is involved, but that's because it can't be involved. Voting is the best compromise we've been able to come up with. Even in a libertarian society, government provides one very important service that disproportionately benefits the rich: enforcement of property law. > Are people in the government somehow know the ultimate truth? No, the existence of government is a compromise between a free market that has flaws and a system of absolute control that also has flaws. We delegate responsibility for the areas where one system is hopelessly flawed to the other system (which merely has to do a better job, not a flawless job). Adam Smith himself acknowledged that the free market is not suited to provide certain services (police, infrastructure, military, etc). The goverment isn't aware of any "ultimate truth" here, but they aren't going to pull the whole "box you in and take all your money" stunt either.

snitko 13y ago
The are plenty of ideas and solutions that answer your questions. I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertarian ideas. I think the important thing to understand is that a government is not some magic cure for all the problems you mentioned. If you take a simple idea that a government is a monopoly on almost all of the things that it does, then you can go from here. Monopolies are mostly not good for consumers; and a huge one with an access to an unlimited force is certainly not.

Nursie 13y ago

>> And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. Nonsense. Our household is in the top 1% of households for earnings. We have no problem paying taxes. We'd like them to be lower for everyone (less waste) but we earn a lot and we contribute a lot to the world around us. This is a good thing.