Burden of proof

[andyfox]

With all due respect, what do all these arguments that government is an unjustifiable injustice mean? Let's say we all here agree, and that government should be done away with. Don't I have an infinitely greater chance of winning the next WSOP than of this happening? You're welcome to continue these postings here, but aren't they more correctly seen as posts that should be in the philosophy forum?

[VayaConDios]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Nothing exists except atoms.

There is no such thing as "a rock," or a "puppy," or "forests." All these terms for atomic aggregations are merely conceptual labels for atoms. "The universe" never does anything – only atoms within the universe act. Thus the "universe" – since it is a concept – has no reality. Physical rules apply to atoms, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual atoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Governments aren’t stealing when they levy taxes

[/ QUOTE ]

So telling to me hand over 30% of my income or else my house is taken and I go to jail for 30 years is somehow not theft. Amazing thought process you have.

[ QUOTE ]
because they provide services that allow you to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like invading Iraq? Or I take it the end justifies the means? Therefore if I mug someone but then go buy him a bag of candy later that night with his money, I didn't actually mug him? Again, amazing thought process you have.

[ QUOTE ]
Businesses (and you) make money because society allows you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So everyone wants food, and I run a business that provides food in exchange for money (good food for a good price mind you). How is it that society allows or disallows me to make money?

[ QUOTE ]
If all the schools closed, and the roads were allowed to crumble, and healthcare went away, do you really think you could earn the money you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Education is demanded, and clearly it will be supplied. Private education from pre-school to college already exists. Roads would be demanded (highly) and certainly they would be supplied as well in a free market.

And throwing in "if healthcare went away" doesn't make any sense to your argument, since government does not provide health care to most Americans.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate logically how roads and schools would not exist in a free market, a daunting task considering they already do to the extent that the government allows them to.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
So telling to me hand over 30% of my income or else my house is taken and I go to jail for 30 years is somehow not theft. Amazing thought process you have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft. The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So telling to me hand over 30% of my income or else my house is taken and I go to jail for 30 years is somehow not theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say you commit a crime. Your punishment is a fine. Is that theft also? I mean, they are telling you to hand over money and if you don't they are threatening you with jail. I doubt that you have expressly consented to the criminal sentence (or the existence of the criminal code for that matter), just as you probably haven't expressly consented to being taxed.

The fact that your lack of compliance can have negative consequences (prison, liens against your property) does not make it theft.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft. The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."


[/ QUOTE ]

While it is certainly true that definitions are based on social uses, that doesn't mean that a specific usage of a term might not be consistent with its general use. The fact that we don't generally consider taxation to be theft does not carry much weight, if it can be shown that the way we more generally use the term theft would be an apt term to describe taxation.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you commit a crime. Your punishment is a fine. Is that theft also? I mean, they are telling you to hand over money and if you don't they are threatening you with jail. I doubt that you have expressly consented to the criminal sentence (or the existence of the criminal code for that matter), just as you probably haven't expressly consented to being taxed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this is not theft, just as it would not be theft if B took the watch that A had, because A had originally stolen it from B. But this is generally agreed upon by not only all libertarians but pretty much everyone in general. I don't however see the analogy between these cases and government taxation.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft. The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."


[/ QUOTE ]

While it is certainly true that definitions are based on social uses, that doesn't mean that a specific usage of a term might not be consistent with its general use. The fact that we don't generally consider taxation to be theft does not carry much weight, if it can be shown that the way we more generally use the term theft would be an apt term to describe taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but people's concepts change depending on the context of what is being discussed. If you';re talking purely about one individual versus another, then tax would seem to fall under theft. But people's concept of theft changes totally when the govenment or collective organisations are involved for the reason that people make choices and tradeoffs between protecting individual rights and what they think serves a wider good. I realise you think that is wrong and always will be, but you aren;t going to ever convince the vast majorty that it is because their values are simply different from yours.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but people's concepts change depending on the context of what is being discussed. If you';re talking purely about one individual versus another, then tax would seem to fall under theft. But people's concept of theft changes totally when the govenment or collective organisations are involved for the reason that people make choices and tradeoffs between protecting individual rights and what they think serves a wider good. I realise you think that is wrong and always will be, but you aren;t going to ever convince the vast majorty that it is because their values are simply different from yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea whether or not certain people, or how many people, would change their minds. But the issue of whether or not someone can be convinced by an argument is separate from whether or not the argument is correct. And I don't think merely citing the fact that people have different values is sufficient--it may show that some people may have trouble changing their minds about certain things, but values aren't totally subjective, either.
In any case, I don't think most people hold very strong values about supposed 'collective rights'--I think people rather have strong values about making sure the less fortunate are not overrun, that they have access to basic necessities, etc. So even if some aren't convinced by ethical arguments against the State, they may be convinced by economic arguments.

[madnak]

I'm sure if you can convince wacki to take them, we'll be happy to move [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]