Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no? - Page 10

madnak · #91 10-30-2007, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you acquire land legitimately under AC principles?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can purchase it. How it's distributed "originally" is trickier, there's no clear consensus, and it would depend on the circumstances. But the thread is back on-topic so let's not discuss it.

furyshade · #92 10-30-2007, 02:39 AM

i honestly don't know how the commitment of the rest of a woman's and potentially many other's lives to a child that will not have a good living condition and most likely end up a burden on society. if two crack heads have a baby and don't want to raise a child that child will either be neglected, put into the foster system, or most likely both.

i argue that, the opposite of your point, if you are pro-life you had better be pro-tax, because if you want to make the decision that a woman must bring an unwanted child into the world you better be willing to pay for it. you should be willing to pay the required tax to feed, shelter, and raise that child if the mother can't. it is remarkably hypocritical to say that it is okay for the government to force a child into existence but after that the government can say sorry, its your problem now

foal · #93 10-30-2007, 11:22 AM

Just to reinforce the point moorobot already made:

[ QUOTE ]
I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is like saying "if you don't want to eat that sandwhich, because it tastes bad then you should never take cold medicine. otherwise you're a hypocrite." Or "if you don't want to buy that watch, because it's expensive, then you should never buy a house or a car."
Most pro-choicers are not of the position that "coercion is always wrong no matter what".

soon2bepro · #94 10-30-2007, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better for whom, and by what definition of "better"? You might think you're making things better, but the people you are coercing might think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Better for all individuals.

I agree with most of what AC proposes, but I can't yet get around the prisoner's dillema. Sure you can say the iterated prisoner's dillema, but I don't think that works.

See for example, if you and me and 2,000,000 other americans are concerned about national security, we can pay for it if it's +EV. I understand that. But if I choose to claim I don't care about it, you can never know that I'm just freeriding on the rest of you.

You can say that it's still +EV for you to pay for it, but that doesn't mean I haven't stold from you.

If it's +EV for you to run a company even when I'm stealing profit from it, that doesn't mean you're ok with me stealing a portion of your company's profits.

This applies to other areas aswell, such as outright theft, violence, enviromental issues, etc.

Now I'm not saying a government is great at preventing these, but at least theoretically it should be better than no government at all. However that doesn't mean I think it's ok for a few people to take decisions for many. I think it'd be better if everyone had a say in decisions. Direct democracy FTW. Though not necessarily 1 man = 1 vote: I think what each person is considered to contribute to society should have at least some weight here.

Also as others may have pointed out, when you can own land, you can easily establish unpenetrable monopolies in mostly every field in the market.
You say taxation is theft, and I partially agree with that, but land ownership is a much more serious and undeniable theft.

Bottomline is, I'm a pro-choicer because I don't think abortions can be said to directly, materially affect anyone else other than the mother. (I don't consider fetuses to be a "someone"). I'm not so sure about being anti-tax because your not being taxated does materially affect others. And I don't think taxation is fundamentally wrong, even though it tends to be.

soon2bepro · #95 10-30-2007, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you acquire land legitimately under AC principles?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can purchase it. How it's distributed "originally" is trickier, there's no clear consensus, and it would depend on the circumstances. But the thread is back on-topic so let's not discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there isn't. You buy it from a guy who bought it from another guy who bought it from another guy... etc... until down the line someone invaded the land, probably killing whoever lived there, and proclaimed the land as their own. In fact you can be certain that before this invasion came, there was another invasion, where another group of people stold the land from the last people who owned it... And so on and so forth, back to the beginning of the human species.

Face the truth. Land ownership is nonsensical under legal terms.

AceLuby · #96 10-30-2007, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

Bork · #97 10-30-2007, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he also has some principle built in, analagous to all Mammals should be treated the same, and then concluding that cats and dogs should be treated the same. Whales, humans, bears, mice, would all make the list too. This makes the logic valid, but it's a stupid strawman principle he is attributing as the major basis for pro-choicers.. It is either invalid or based on a false strawman premise though, and when you call him on one he switches to the other.

Your mammal point is a fairly good way to illustrate how obvious it as that all acts of coersion are not wrong. It's so obvious that one wonders why we should even care about these mythical pro-choicers who base their view on such an obviously false principle.

MaxWeiss · #98 10-31-2007, 01:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not ALL pro-choicers, but at least the vast majority of them.

One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death." Fair enough.

But if that is a person's stance, then that person should also believe that government-imposed taxation is immoral. ie, "it is immoral to force people to pay taxes to the government. Citizens should not be forced to give their money to the government, even if revoking that money will result in the government's collapse." It seems perfectly analogous.

Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess that I and many others can derive a large percentage of your personal, political, and religious views, based solely on the fact that you don't see the fallacy of your argument.

vhawk01 · #99 10-31-2007, 07:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get it...where are you "completely disagree"-ing? He asked if you thought the cat and dog were both mammals, you say you do, and then you say you completely disagree? Explain.

vhawk01 · #**100** 10-31-2007, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he also has some principle built in, analagous to all Mammals should be treated the same, and then concluding that cats and dogs should be treated the same. Whales, humans, bears, mice, would all make the list too. This makes the logic valid, but it's a stupid strawman principle he is attributing as the major basis for pro-choicers.. It is either invalid or based on a false strawman premise though, and when you call him on one he switches to the other.

Your mammal point is a fairly good way to illustrate how obvious it as that all acts of coersion are not wrong. It's so obvious that one wonders why we should even care about these mythical pro-choicers who base their view on such an obviously false principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

His mammal point is terrible at demonstrating that. It doesnt do anything like that. And no one bases their pro-choice position on the premise that ALL acts of coercion are wrong. Merely the initiation of violent coercion.