|
|
#71
10-29-2007, 06:15 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. [/ QUOTE ] Labor theory of value! Those costs should have been alredy accounted for in the transactions. If people do a poor job of accounting for those costs, they'll eventually be driven out of the market by those who do a better job of it. The pencil I used three minutes ago required a lumberjack to cut the tree down, a driver to haul the tree to the mill, a mill operator to process the wood, another truck driver to take the processed wood to the pencil factory, a pencil maker guy to make the pencil, another driver to haul the pencil to WalMart, a WalMart stock guy to put the pencil on the shelf, and a cashier to process the transaction. I don't owe any of theose people anything. Each person is compensated appropriately (by their own subjective valuations!) at each step along the way. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying the market doesn't account for costs. But if you think most of those earning much more are being compensated according to the value of the wealth they create, I think you're mistaken. Some people benefit greatly from society, while others working the exact same hours benefit little. Part of taxation is a recognition that those working and earning in the bottom rungs are probably not being compensated fairly by the market (by fairly I mean, according to wealth created vs utility received). So I do not think those who have to pay taxes have any natural, god given right to retain every cent of their money. Certainly not the same kind of right that says a woman has an absolute right to determine what happens in her own body. And I don't think the market accounts for society wide costs. Your point about going broke and being forced from the market breaks down when you look at country wide and global effects IMO. 
|
|
#72
10-29-2007, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
Why can a group of citizens own a parcel of land, and delegate someone to manage it via majority vote, but not do the same thing with a government? [/ QUOTE ] They can! That's not how the USA was founded, though. DUCY? [ QUOTE ] And you're using an argument based on an action taken centuries ago, which if used equivalently with private property, more likely than not invalidates the title to the land you're standing on right now. [/ QUOTE ] You're going to have to get more specific since I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
|
|
#73
10-29-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
Then you should admit this [ QUOTE ] The government has no legitimate claim. [/ QUOTE ] is a weak argument. According to the opinions of the majority, the government has 'legitimate' rule of the land. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, in general. But in Phil's context of "under AC definitions of ownership," I think assuming the implication of an AC conception of legitimacy was justified.
|
|
#74
10-29-2007, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] What's next - you going to start believing in God?
|
|
#76
10-29-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Then you should admit this [ QUOTE ] The government has no legitimate claim. [/ QUOTE ] is a weak argument. According to the opinions of the majority, the government has 'legitimate' rule of the land. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, in general. But in Phil's context of "under AC definitions of ownership," I think assuming the implication of an AC conception of legitimacy was justified. [/ QUOTE ] There's an AC conception of legitimacy? I thought when you answered that "legitimacy is largely subjective" you were dismissing any hard AC definition of legitimacy. If your personal definition of legitimacy is different from "an AC conception of legitimacy" could you please explain the latter to me?
|
|
#79
10-29-2007, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] You are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say "if you are against A, and A is coercive, then you must be against everything that is coercive." I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive." It's easy to say someone sucks at reasoning if you completely misconstrue their argument.
|
|
#80
10-29-2007, 10:28 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. [/ 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 ] On the other hand, no one is forcing you to live in a particular country... You can just leave. [/ QUOTE ] True. But then I guess all authoritative activity can be justified. The government wants to murder you? Quit yer bitchin, you can always leave.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
