|
|
#32
10-29-2007, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced. [/ QUOTE ] So your argument is "money can be replaced, therefore people should not have as much control over their money." You'll have to explain because I don't follow. 
|
|
#33
10-29-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced. [/ QUOTE ] If I punch you it will heal. This seems completely irrelevant though. Also, how does money get magically replaced? If I have to work more to earn more money it is not being replaced. I am just getting more, new money. That money is gone. You've taken it from me, and I will never get it back. This impacts my happiness to varying degrees, depending on how much you took, just like a physical assault would.
|
|
#36
10-29-2007, 11:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
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.
|
|
#37
10-29-2007, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how it does? [/ QUOTE ] If you own yourself, you cannot be forced to submit your body for any other purpose. IOW, taxation and pro-life arguments seem to rest on the assumption that someone else is ENTITLED to your body. This is at direct odds with the idea that I own my own body. If I have self-ownership, no one else can be ENTITLED to my body, which leads to X and Y.
|
|
#38
10-29-2007, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ 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.
|
|
#39
10-29-2007, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ QUOTE ]
If you own yourself, you cannot be forced to submit your body for any other purpose. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. That probably means my concept of ownership is much weaker than yours. [ QUOTE ] IOW, taxation and pro-life arguments seem to rest on the assumption that someone else is ENTITLED to your body. [/ QUOTE ] If you agree that money is part of your body. Most would not agree.
|
|
#40
10-29-2007, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
