|
|
#41
10-29-2007, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
So basically
A is X B is X and if we accept the opinion Y about X then A is B I can live with that, and I'll go on and be pro-choice and pro-tax without a single conflict of logic since I don't agree with Y. B&W definitions and politics/ethics discussions sure changes alot! 
|
|
#42
10-29-2007, 12:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
Yeah and they should be be for allowing murder, pedophilia, theft, etc. too! They should also be for legal permission to let their own children starve to death. Forcing people to take care of their kids is wrong.
If you think one kind of restraint/limitation is wrong then you must (ought to) think all of them are wrong.. Wow, you suck at reasoning. [ QUOTE ] one of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of [/ QUOTE ] The rare person who does believe the extreme principle that we shouldn't be forced to do/not-do stuff ought to be pro-choice, and anti-tax. However they are mostly just dumb or haven't thought through the implications of that general principle. Anti-Stealing must be Anti-War, NO?: One of the major justifications for prohibition on stealing is something along the lines of people shouldn't have their things taken from them. If one has that stance then they should be against all wars because in wars people have their lives taken from them. It seems perfectly analagous.. No it isn't. Just because some of the sentence structure and words are similar doesn't make it perfectly analagous or even at all relevant. Not only that but the "major reasons for most people" is just a complete strawman that very few people actually believe.
|
|
#43
10-29-2007, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
The prisoner's dillema. If you believe the government can act as a useful tool to force people to cooperate, this could be better than everyone on their own.
On the other hand, no one is forcing you to live in a particular country... You can just leave.
|
|
#44
10-29-2007, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer. [/ QUOTE ] How you could refuse to pay it? If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands (roads) then according to AC stupidity, they could legitimately shoot anyone who goes on their road without permission [/ QUOTE ] This is false. [ QUOTE ] - or require them to sign a taxation contract. People would have no choice but to pay. Thus you have taxation with perfect moral legitimacy under AC philosophies. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed. Now just work on convincing every property owner in this country to sell their land to the government and lease it back.
|
|
#45
10-29-2007, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body. I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since - that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and - society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income. Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation. [/ QUOTE ] Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer. [/ QUOTE ] Vhawk01, When did you become an ACer?
|
|
#46
10-29-2007, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer. [/ QUOTE ] How you could refuse to pay it? If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands (roads) then according to AC stupidity, they could legitimately shoot anyone who goes on their road without permission - or require them to sign a taxation contract. People would have no choice but to pay. Thus you have taxation with perfect moral legitimacy under AC philosophies. [/ QUOTE ] Right. So you just dont go over their roads for 5 seconds. They become instantly bankrupt and must start selling all their land. How do they make money if not for labor? We would still own all that. Property is no good without labor. Whoever these eight guys you are calling "the government" are, they are going to be screwed.
|
|
#47
10-29-2007, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, what? Not even close. Let's just ignore all the questionable means in general, the characterization of the government as a private corporation (never) etc and talk about the fact the land was already inhabited before the colonists even arrived. The government has no legitimate claim. Even if they did have a legitimate claim "according to the rules," AC is about flexibility, not rigidity. I know some of the posters here get lost on that, but it's true. There is absolutely nothing in AC society that prevents breaking the rules in some cases when they're being applied in silly ways. See all the responses to the "Bill Gates buys one square inch in the middle of the river and then charges everyone who tries to use it ten hojillion dollars!" scenarios in politics.
|
|
#48
10-29-2007, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body. I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since - that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and - society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income. Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation. [/ QUOTE ] Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer. [/ QUOTE ] Vhawk01, When did you become an ACer? [/ QUOTE ] Not sure exactly. 6 months ago maybe? There wasnt exactly a lightbulb moment or anything. I resisted it for a while because it seemed like such a pejorative term and I didnt want to call myself that, but then I got over that.
|
|
#49
10-29-2007, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
So basically A is X B is X and if we accept the opinion Y about X then A is B I can live with that, and I'll go on and be pro-choice and pro-tax without a single conflict of logic since I don't agree with Y. B&W definitions and politics/ethics discussions sure changes alot! [/ QUOTE ] Right. As long as you plan on accepting that you do NOT believe in self-ownership, thats fine. You just must then accept the consequences that result from their being no right to self-ownership. Like me enslaving you.
|
|
#50
10-29-2007, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
The prisoner's dillema. If you believe the government can act as a useful tool to force people to cooperate, this could be better than everyone on their own. On the other hand, no one is forcing you to live in a particular country... You can just leave. [/ QUOTE ] You leave. No one is forcing you to be an ACer, so leave if you dont like vhawkland. Vhawkland is defined as all my property. You can do whatever you want outside of that property, I cant stop you. You can even vote. However, if I live next to Madnakland, you cant stop me from associating with him, right? I like your solution, love it or leave it, right? I will tell people to GTFO of Vhawkland all the time now.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
