|
|
#141
04-27-2007, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Arfinn, do you think a bank should be able to give me a loan without my consent when I'm born, then demand loan payments from me once a year, threatening to forcefully imprison me (killing me if I resist) if I don't pay? [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't believe so. It is not remotely comparable to the taxation I justify. [/ QUOTE ] How is it different? I am born into society, the benefits of which constitute a loan, so later in my life I must repay that debt by paying taxes. Could you explain how what you think differs from that statement if it does? [/ QUOTE ] There are many different arguments used for taxation, you can't just take an argument I use towards your duty of solidarity (i.e. tax to aid disabled persons) and use it wrt to the taxes to schools, roads etc. which you seem to focus on in this post. The taxes for the latter are usually justified by claiming that common state nonvoluntary solutions are more effective for these services than a free market, I don't buy that claim for many of those services and thus I can't defend it. I believe the boy next door is entitled to an education teaching him how to read and write so I need to tax you, but education in general doesn't have to be conducted by the state, so taxing you to pay the salaries to professors at an university is very questionable. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, instead of debt, you're using "duty of solidarity". So it isn't that I was provided advantages that I must now compensate society for, it's that I am BORN laden with the responsibility of helping starving, disabled, or otherwise unfortunate members of my society, simply by virtue of being born into this society. Government, and taxation by extension, is an instrument for ensuring that I fulfill this responsibility. Is this correct? If it isn't, could you please explain how your position differs? If it is, could you respond to a few questions: 1.) What is the basis of this responsibility? Is it a moral responsibility (i.e. I am born with it because helping others is the right thing to do.)? Is it a contractual responsibility (I am born with it because being born constitutes a contractual agreement with society)? Or what? 2.) What if someone does not believe that they were born with this responsibility? Is it justified, in this case, to force them to fulfill this responsibility, if they are unwilling to fulfill it of their own will? 3.) What is the extent of this responsibility? If there are any starving, disabled, or otherwise unfortunate members of my society, is all my wealth beyond that which is needed for my survival owed to them because of this responsibility? If not, why not? Why is it justified to only owe a certain portion? If I am born with the basic responsibility of helping those disabled, starving, and unfortunate, shouldn't I only be allowed to accumulate a surplus of wealth when the needs of all of them in my society have been met? 4.) Why am I responsible for the starving, disabled, and otherwise unfortunate members of my society, but not those of other societies of which I am not a member? Since you've agreed that I owe no debt to my society, why are its members more deserving of my support than the destitute in other places in the world? I have more, but will leave it there for now. 
|
|
#142
04-27-2007, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
"You and I could come to various agreements about how we are going to live in peace.
However, in the absence of government we face a prisoners dilemma. No matter what you do it will always be better for me to sneak into your house in the middle of the night and kill you." Does this remain true if I have armed security guards patrolling my house? Does it remain true if I have a rudimentary security system and a shotgun under my bed? Does it remain true if the reputation of murderer will ostracize you from society? Pure conclusion-assuming nonsense. Decisions made under anarchy do not resemble the prisoner's dilemma.
|
|
#143
04-27-2007, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
define force, or aggression, or both if they are different
|
|
#145
04-27-2007, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't need to assert anything - I already have possession, I'm not taking anything from anyone else. [/ QUOTE ] (Now I am repeating myself, but so it becomes faced with many people throwing out the same arguments [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). Again, you make a claim for the apple, but there are others that claim that the apple is not yours. They build up a system (IRS etc.) to get half the apple transported to its rightful owners, they pick up that part of your apple when you are sleeping, you have to intervene towards their operation in order to make the apple yours. [/ QUOTE ] This isn't how my taxes work, they send me a letter in the mail demanding money, and I send it to them or else.
|
|
#146
04-27-2007, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
You talking to me or OP? I didn't use "aggression" in my post. [/ QUOTE ] any AC [ QUOTE ] This isn't how my taxes work, they send me a letter in the mail demanding money, and I send it to them or else. [/ QUOTE ] Capitalists do the same thing to their workers. The demands are just different.
|
|
#148
04-29-2007, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an ACist suggest I act?
[ QUOTE ]
bunny, [ QUOTE ] Preventing people from violating another's property rights even if they want to is clearly oppressive "to some extent" as you are preventing them from freely doing what they want to. (Quite correctly in my opinion, but I dont think it's possible to avoid violating others' rights to some degree) [/ QUOTE ] I think you should tweak your definition of "rights" if you think people have rights which it's logically impossible not to violate. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are right. Thanks.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
