atticana's religious statism is out of fashion! Only the Social Gospel movement a century ago used to preach wealth redistribution. Fundamentalist Christians in vogue prefer banning sex & drugs and killing brown people as ethical ends.
It isn't the unemployeds' fault that the owning-class corporations decide to outsource for cheap labor, and it isn't immigrants' fault that corporations hire them over western native populations.
Correct. It is the fault of the government that robs people at the point of a gun, imposes all kinds of regulations and raises taxes. The regulations make it difficult to establish new businesses to compete with existings ones, while the high taxes chase the employers overseas. And corporations are also state-created entities. Without the state giving them all those legal privileges and granting them personhood status, they would not exist as such.
Yeah, they make them elsewhere, where they can avoid these taxes and regulations that your beloved bureaucrats to whom you pray every night impose, the very same regulations which also hamper competition, which causes the wealth to concentrate in the hands of less and less. It's a tragedy that people like you are so fucking willfully ignorant and PCS-level economically illiterate to understand that.
However, the only thing that is being purged as we speak is your obsolete Cult of the Omnipotent State. It may take a while, just as it will take with religion, but once enough people realize that there is no moral high ground in robbing Peter to pay for Paul, the Cult of the Omnipotent State will find itself in the same dustbin of history with all the cults of the omnipotent gods of the old. Ain't that a bitch?
Maybe i'm just stating the obvious, but there is of course only one trainwreck in this small exchange, and it is not atticana...
You just don't exist without a society, a state in any form. This means that you owe society as the society ows you. And yes, some of your contributions are voluntary, some are not. Get over it.
Err, yes I do. Or at the very least, I could. Just as Robinson Crusoe could exist on a lone island, so can voluntarily isolate himself from a society. So that statement is pretty much wrong.
"a state in any form"
Society=/=state.
"This means that you owe society as the society ows you."
See Guncriminal's reply.
"some of your contributions are voluntary, some are not."
Funny how all the best places to live are bankrupt evil "socialist" countries. The west is a decent safe wealthy place BECAUSE we take care of our fellow citizen. Revolution & fascism has been the result in the past. People with no hope tend to find religion. Praise jeebus!
"Funny how all the best places to live are bankrupt evil "socialist" countries"
You mean, like America? Yeah,it is certainly bankrupt thanks to the wonderful welfare-warfare state.
It is NOT the welfare state which caused prosperity,it is prosperity, caused by a FREE MARKET which ALLOWS the existence of welfare state as a parasite. Without a free market which creates wealth, there can be no wealth for the welfare state to leech on. Got it?
Why does it always come down to America.....guess what, 95% of the worlds population aint American. Such a narrow world view, and such a narrow understanding of society. Its touching, I used to be like you, then I got out in the world.
I am not an American, so your point about my worldview being "narrow" is kinda moot. It is people like you who always seem to perceive America as that "evil empire of pure free market", or something like that, claiming that all of its problems stems from not having a big enough, powerful enough gov controlled by bureaucrats with hearts and brains the size of bowling balls, when in fact it is now in deep shit largely because of disastrous statist policies.
@Akatam0t0ma Just get it over with, call me a Nazi-Commie bastard. Boring, tired libertarian talking points. Sorry, but I would rather masturbate over midget porn.
You, a Nazi? I thought I was supposed to be the Nazi Fascist Racist Social Darwinist Hitler Worshipper Who Hates The Poor because I want the government to get out of our lives. Glad we cleared that one.
"Boring, tired libertarian talking points"
Yes, libertarian talking points, but also logically and ethically coherent and sound points, which no statist, as far as my knowledge goes, has ever offered an adequate rebuttal to.
@Akatam0t0ma Rebuttal is easy...we live in the real world and not an abstract conceptual model. Models are useful to test ideas, a thought experiment. The current systems are the direct result of social, environmental and technological developments....which make a libertarianism impossible.
@EvilEuropean -- Libertarianism is the future of the world! Right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism are ideologies of pure stupidity and depravity which are DOOMED!!
"Libertarians, especially of the Objectivist stripe, may disagree with me on that, is that I have no problem whatsoever with people pooling their resources to achieve a common goal or having privately run charities"
I agree. The Objectivist issue is that such charity shouldn't be extolled as a "primary moral good" or a "duty". The act of volitionally giving to a charity they value for it's virtues doesn't conflict with Objectivist ethics- especially if it's a teaching "hand up", not a hand out.
In the US at least, it is a myth that you are taxed at the point of a gun. You can refuse to pay taxes all you want and you won't go to jail. Any form of debtors prison is unconstitutional. People go to prison for lying about their income of failure to report it. Yes, the government can take property for not paying debts just as banks, auto repair shops, contractors, etc... but they can not imprison you for not paying taxes. Don't like paying taxes? Go start a commune in the mountains.
@michalchik So you've not heard of Ed and Elaine Brown... they are in prison for the rest of their lives for not paying taxes.
You're just plain wrong.
As for the "if you don't like it you can leave argument," What you are really saying is that if you don't acknowledge the States right to aggress against you, you can just leave. It's morally repugnant.
It's like saying, if you don't want me to beat you when I rob you, you shouldn't be home when I show up. You being home implies consent.
@noadmiration Edward Brown was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, 31 U.S.C. § 5325 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), and one count of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
@michalchik So it's not tax evasion if we don't actually call it tax evasion... we say structuring financial transaction to evade Treasury reporting.
The point is a non violent, though misguided, elderly couple were imprisoned, effectively for life, for wanting to be left alone. You're OK with that?
@noadmiration Tax evasion is fraudulent reporting of income, hiding assets, claiming legal status that is false. Fraud to avoid paying debts is illegal. You file your taxes honestly and you won't go to jail whether or not you pay. End of story. Is this point too subtle for you?
@michalchik It's irrelevant. If you support throwing non violent people in jail for failing to properly fill out a form, particularly when the tax code (over a million words) is constantly changing, without notice, you are immoral.
@noadmiration Yes, which is why deliberate fraud is part of the burden of proof. Simple confusion and mistakes can result in monetary penalties but tax evasion is fraud and requires proof of intent. You are creating a straw man fallacy.
What is just immoral is being a parasite on our society and thinking you have the right to avoid paying for it.
You drive on the public roads you agree to the rules of the road, you use this society to make money, you agree to obey the rules necessary to make this society work including taxes. The penalty is not getting shot or imprisoned; it is getting your assets seized just like any breach of contract. If you try to defraud someone including the government then you go to prison.
@michalchik Right.. a contract I signed when I was an infant which entitles a percentage of any of my income be taken without my consent in perpetuity. A contract I have never actually seen which is not binding in any way except as a means of justifying my obligations to the state... that contract.
The roads are an imposed government monopoly. I would love private roads.
@noadmiration No, it is a contract that is paid on the basis of services rendered. You chose to live in this society you have to pay for access. Police, fire, currency, military defense, educated population, disease control, clean air water food, scientific research, protection form fraud, protection from monopoly pricing, licensing of doctors and on. The government has only stepped in where private ventures have failed. You are just oblivious to how good you have it.
@michalchik Service I don't want and didn't ask for, and which the government is under no obligation to provide. If my house catches fire and the FD doesn't make it in time, are they liable? If I am robbed or murdered are the police obligated to solve the crime? If the military "defends" me by training and arming people who would later become terrorist, do I get a refund? No, but I still have to pay or else. Governments provide 'services' the same way the mafia provides 'protection'.
@noadmiration If you don't want these services find some places without them. Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, or go live in the wilderness you have lots of choices. If you want to live as part of civilization and enjoy its prosperity you have to pay for it.
If the fire department doesn't make to your house in time you can take it up with the city or the courts. Elect a new mayor, create a stink, get people fired. That is the point of democracy.
Martin Luther King Jr., Wesley Snipes, Method Man, Richard Pryor, Al Capone, Sophia Loren, Leona Helmsley...
All were arrested and spent time in prison for tax evasion. We only know about them because they also happened to be famous. I'm sure there are many more we will never hear about... what was that about fact checking?
@noadmiration And your point would be? People go to jail when they commit crimes like fraud. If the next automechanic you visited sold your car instead and then when you sued him and won, he emptied his bank accounts and his the money, do you think he should get away with it or go to jail.
I work for the Australian Tax Office. I don't particularly like my job but I fully embrace the Tax Office's purpose. No guns are used. Legal action is a last resort. If people do their utmost to avoid paying their legal dues how would you get people to contribute voluntarily? How would you set up and administer this utopia of yours?
@BacchanalianJ We are there to ensure people pay their FAIR share in order to finance roads, hospitals and schools, pensions, allowances, accident insurance and so on.. The people who commit the biggest frauds are rarely the ones who struggle to get by, but the ones who can afford 'creative' accountants and good lawyers.
@AuntieDiluvian "No guns are used. Legal action is a last resort." These two statements conflict- the legal action results in the use of guns if payment of tax is still resisted- no? While voluntary taxes are ideal- it's really not so much about the act of compulsory taxation as it is what the taxes are used for. Every individual has the right of self-defense, the right to repel the initiation of force from others- in our "utopia" that is the ONLY right citizens can delegate to government.
@1RationalMind Police here are rarely armed, and people arrested for tax crime are usually bailed to appear rather than remanded in custody. As it is a non-violent crime no guns are usually needed.
@AuntieDiluvian That's certainly more tempered than the US government reaction. I know from personal experience that when taxes are delinquent here, the IRS begins with serious phone threats to confiscate your home or car, & they will follow through. They contacted my employer and increased my tax rate immediately to cover the (less than $10K) deficiency. We had to "sweet talk them with promises" to get them to back down. Here- the IRS is LITERALLY a team of gangster thugs with extensive power.
@1RationalMind Sounds like a fairly badly-run and ineffective organisation. Confiscation as a straight-off option is very heavy-handed and more likely to lead to huge resentment and more non-compliance.
@AuntieDiluvian Huge resentment indeed. The actions of the IRS, combined with an attitude among the citizens & politicians that I am to be "morally compelled" to support my fellow citizens by compulsion, & that- as Obama puts it- they have the 'right' to "Spread my wealth around". Has led me to despise this country. Two centuries ago it had the best chance of being a truly free & moral society, and the citizens destroyed it, willingly, piece by piece.
@noadmiration That response is in extremely bad taste and incredibly stupid. People who whinge about paying tax are hardly likely to be philanthropists, in my experience. They may donate to a few charities to help ease their consciences, but helping to prop up a whole society with voluntary giving? Don't make me laugh.
@AuntieDiluvian It may be in bad taste. It's also a very direct point. You cannot force people to pay for services, and then claim that they want your services. In fact the amount of force required is inversely proportional to the amount they don't want to pay. Your question illustrates that you have limited understanding of economics and intensives. You seem to assume that people who will pay for Tim Tams and iPods wont pay for roads or schools. I find that logic bizarre.
@noadmiration Ipods and roads are very different, literally and figuratively. An iPod is something I use, and practically no one else uses my iPod. A hospital or a road is used by others and I may never need to use them. I may not have school age children. Good luck getting people to pay voluntarily for stuff other people need and I don't. The basic human condition is 'someone else will fix it.'
@AuntieDiluvian So you don't have shopping malls in Australia? Or private schools? Or cell phone networks? If there is a genuine market demand for services, then the market will provide them. If there isn't, then no one should be compelled to pay for them, just because some people think they are a good idea. Why should people pay for things they don't want? In the US roads, schools, and hospitals all started out as private enterprises before being forcibly taken over by the government..
"No guns are used. Legal action is a last resort."
And what would that "last resort" involve if not throwing people in a box and turning them into swiss cheese should they resist being thrown in a box, pray tell?
"how would you get people to contribute voluntarily? "
And how do you KNOW they won't contribute voluntarily? Maybe they want to donate some of the money which the bureaucrats extorts from them at the point of a gun to some private charity, who knows?
@Akatam0t0ma We do not shoot people for tax fraud. They may get a short jail sentence in rare cases. I don't KNOW they won't contribute voluntarily but I very much doubt it. Like the existence of god really.
"How would you set up and administer this utopia of yours?"
Administer? You assume as if there MUST be some kind of centralized, coercive mechanism to administer the "utopia", which is of course a fallacy. And since a utopia would necessarily be authoritarian, if not totalitarian(As Karl Popper points out in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies), my way of thinking is very un-utopian.
@Akatam0t0ma You avoided the question. So do you have laws? Do you have deterrants against crime in this Anarchist society? Who makes the important decisions? What if people disagree? My use of the word 'Utopia' was just as a euphemism for some ideal world - I didn't mean it in the Marxian sense.
1. Akatam0t0ma is a libertarian minarchist not an anarchist.
2. The answer is through smaller mutual aid societies. And if people disagree they can use private defence agencies or peoples militias against one another. But without a huge monopoly on force (the state) with ideological support giving it an infinite supply of money to wage war on people throughout the world, any conflicts would be short lived.
Anarchists HAVE answered this a million times, just google it please
@Ilikenuman So you're talking about a society full of co-ops. The question remains, how are you going to implement this? Will you start with a few willing participants moving to their own 'societies'? I'd prefer you to tell me rather than having to look in Google - I'd prefer to know you could articulate your own views which may or may not be what I could find in Google.
There are lots of different strategies to implement it that people want to try. Some anarchists just want to participate in politics and vote for as many small government types as possible aka Ron Paul, and then hopefully secede as early as possible if the state does not then dssappear by itself.
Others think the best way is to create coops and societies that compete with the public ones and get popular support from doing so. Im only 18 but when im older im hoping to do that
@AuntieDiluvian "Do you have deterrants against crime in this Anarchist society?" Libertarianism is not (usually) = to anarchism (though it's a variant). As a means of conducting a society, anarchism is irrational & impossible. The result has been displayed over & over- it results in warring gangs, & the gang leaders become the authority, essentially negating the "anarchy". Libertarians like me know there is a need for military, police & courts. & that anarchism is irrational & unsustainable.
@1RationalMind Who funds the police and the courts and the military? If I live in your society and benefit from your police, will you make me pay a levy for their services or will someone else step in if I don't want to pay? Why would you not have 'state' hospitals and schools? These aren't meant to sound like facetious questions - I am interested to hear how you would design your society.
@AuntieDiluvian The citizens fund the military, police & courts- yes the taxes would have to be compulsory, in a citizenry as we have today, but the goal would be to eventually have a rational citizenry that understood the need & gave voluntarily. State schools & hospitals are my "weak spots", honestly. I struggle with those issues. I would support them, but I can't morally justify compulsory taxes to support them. You just "hit me below the belt", I'll have you know! :)
@1RationalMind :) In an egalitarian society religion does less damage and has less of a stronghold then where there are poor and sick and uneducated people, so as long as your society can provide for the people who can't contribute for some reason, may you live long and prosper. I appreciate the conversation.
@AuntieDiluvian It is my sincere hope that basic human compassion, without reliance on god figures, could be fostered such that most felt the desire to help others grow to respectable self-reliance if possible, and would provide caring support when self-reliance is not possible.
May you live long and prosper as well! :) Rational, civil conversation is always welcome & appreciated.
I find it so sad that objectivists so easily just brush statelessness aside. You acknowlede that it is funded on violence and is inefficient at everything else it does right?
Stateless Ireland and Iceland were stable socities filled with smaller communities and small armies that only claimed ownership over homesteaded land. They only became pardon the expression ehem* UTTER SHITHOLES when christian missionaries came over and indoctrinated/forced people into statism again.
@Ilikenuman Objectivism advocates voluntarily supported minarchy. Ideally, taxes would be voluntary, though transitioning to such a society would take time, considering our current society. No immoral violence by government upon citizens would be condoned. The government would be limited to the enforcement of objective laws that only deal with countering the immoral initiation of force.
If a government of people can't conduct itself so, a group of people with no government will not fare better.
a group of people cooperating basically is a government.
But an unaccountable oligarchy excercising in forced taxation is what anarchists are opposed to.
But again, you would like voluntarily supported minarchy huh? well if you add unlimited secession to that then youre really no different to the typical voluntariyist, of which individualist/market anarchists are included in :)
@Ilikenuman "But an unaccountable oligarchy excercising in forced taxation is what anarchists are opposed to."
Yes, Objectivism strongly opposes such a system as well. Unlimited secession is not something I had not yet considered, nor have I read anything from Rand on the issue (not that I always agree with her, I think for myself, but my mind is often in agreement with hers.) At first thought, it seems a rational practice to advocate, as it could restore a government that strayed "off target".
Yes, if the government fails to give the people what they want they will slowly lose their power, and if they use force to maintain them rather than appeasing them, then it will expose their weakness and instability thereby leading to their downfall.
@Ilikenuman "Unlimited secession is *not* something I had not yet considered" No need for that first "not". Seems our typing is off today! I claim lack of caffeine, sound good to you? :)
@AuntieDiluvian The barrel of a gun is certainly waiting for someone who doesn't pay up, hmm? "How do you get people to contribute voluntarily"?.... The statist' greatest riddle.
He probably think that the reason Eastern Europe worse off is because they don't have a welfare state run by bureaucrats with hears and brains the size of bowling balls, lol.
As an atheist I am far more informed about the virtues of the free market than 99.9% of religious people. When I listen to most religious people talk about reducing taxes and such, they seem oblivious to the effects of the central bank on our economy. They think our economic problems began with the Clinton administration.
In other words: they are much more of a threat to the free market than I am.
"They think our economic problems began with the Clinton administration."
Exactly. Most religionists in America(Like Mysticalforest, for example), and most people in general(With those who think that it's all the fault of Bush as the counterparts of those who blame it all on Clinton) do not see the issues beyond the two-party system, when in fact the crux of the issues stretches far beyond that.
@Akatam0t0ma Objectivism isn't against charity, we're against charity seen as a moral virtue, or worse: duty.
You aren't necessarily a better person if you give to charity. It depends: Is the charity really going to help? or is it just a way to relieve yourself of guilt and not do much work in the process? Are you doing it to please others or are you doing it because you've done as much studying on the subject and problem as possible and you've decided that it's the best course of action?
@Sam26100 I would say the key aspect of charity within Objectivist ethics would be a rational evaluation of the virtues that a charity advocated. Charities I support advocate teaching individualism, productiveness, pride & have a goal of improving the abilities of the recipients of charity such that they will eventually not require charity, and could further provide it to others. At some point, mankind would need very little charity. Only those truly unable to be self-supportive would need it.
Hey I know this guy from darkmatter2525, It sounded more like a Russian accent
gamer7916 1 month ago
Austrian accent?
HeyRuka 8 months ago
atticana's religious statism is out of fashion! Only the Social Gospel movement a century ago used to preach wealth redistribution. Fundamentalist Christians in vogue prefer banning sex & drugs and killing brown people as ethical ends.
RaymondDundas 1 year ago
It isn't the unemployeds' fault that the owning-class corporations decide to outsource for cheap labor, and it isn't immigrants' fault that corporations hire them over western native populations.
jaymthegenius 1 year ago
@jaymthegenius:
Correct. It is the fault of the government that robs people at the point of a gun, imposes all kinds of regulations and raises taxes. The regulations make it difficult to establish new businesses to compete with existings ones, while the high taxes chase the employers overseas. And corporations are also state-created entities. Without the state giving them all those legal privileges and granting them personhood status, they would not exist as such.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma
"imposes all kinds of regulations and raises taxes."
That's why the same companies make billions in pure profit.
Fucking retarded free market fundies, the world needs to purge you.
mecher3k 1 year ago
@mecher3k:
Yeah, they make them elsewhere, where they can avoid these taxes and regulations that your beloved bureaucrats to whom you pray every night impose, the very same regulations which also hamper competition, which causes the wealth to concentrate in the hands of less and less. It's a tragedy that people like you are so fucking willfully ignorant and PCS-level economically illiterate to understand that.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@mecher3k:
However, the only thing that is being purged as we speak is your obsolete Cult of the Omnipotent State. It may take a while, just as it will take with religion, but once enough people realize that there is no moral high ground in robbing Peter to pay for Paul, the Cult of the Omnipotent State will find itself in the same dustbin of history with all the cults of the omnipotent gods of the old. Ain't that a bitch?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
Nice to see you back making videos, Akatam0t0ma ! Also: GREAT title. :-)
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
Maybe i'm just stating the obvious, but there is of course only one trainwreck in this small exchange, and it is not atticana...
You just don't exist without a society, a state in any form. This means that you owe society as the society ows you. And yes, some of your contributions are voluntary, some are not. Get over it.
renemartien 1 year ago
@renemartien
Society is a collection of individuals; it's an abstraction. It can't be "owed" anything.
Guncriminal 1 year ago
@renemartien:
"You just don't exist without a society"
Err, yes I do. Or at the very least, I could. Just as Robinson Crusoe could exist on a lone island, so can voluntarily isolate himself from a society. So that statement is pretty much wrong.
"a state in any form"
Society=/=state.
"This means that you owe society as the society ows you."
See Guncriminal's reply.
"some of your contributions are voluntary, some are not."
The latter of which are ethically indefensible.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@renemartien "Involuntary contributions."...lol .........Thank you for being an honest statist.
216trixie 1 year ago
Funny how all the best places to live are bankrupt evil "socialist" countries. The west is a decent safe wealthy place BECAUSE we take care of our fellow citizen. Revolution & fascism has been the result in the past. People with no hope tend to find religion. Praise jeebus!
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
@EvilEuropean:
"Funny how all the best places to live are bankrupt evil "socialist" countries"
You mean, like America? Yeah,it is certainly bankrupt thanks to the wonderful welfare-warfare state.
It is NOT the welfare state which caused prosperity,it is prosperity, caused by a FREE MARKET which ALLOWS the existence of welfare state as a parasite. Without a free market which creates wealth, there can be no wealth for the welfare state to leech on. Got it?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
Why does it always come down to America.....guess what, 95% of the worlds population aint American. Such a narrow world view, and such a narrow understanding of society. Its touching, I used to be like you, then I got out in the world.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
@EvilEuropean:
I am not an American, so your point about my worldview being "narrow" is kinda moot. It is people like you who always seem to perceive America as that "evil empire of pure free market", or something like that, claiming that all of its problems stems from not having a big enough, powerful enough gov controlled by bureaucrats with hearts and brains the size of bowling balls, when in fact it is now in deep shit largely because of disastrous statist policies.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma MY GOD(LESS) you can READ minds! Nice Ad hom.
The world is more complex than the narrow black and white perspective you seem to be displaying in your comments. Shame.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
@EvilEuropean:
"The west is a decent safe wealthy place BECAUSE we take care of our fellow citizen. "
Again, what does taking care of our fellow citizens has to do with taking people's wealth at the point of a gun?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Just get it over with, call me a Nazi-Commie bastard. Boring, tired libertarian talking points. Sorry, but I would rather masturbate over midget porn.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
@EvilEuropean:
"call me a Nazi-Commie bastard."
You, a Nazi? I thought I was supposed to be the Nazi Fascist Racist Social Darwinist Hitler Worshipper Who Hates The Poor because I want the government to get out of our lives. Glad we cleared that one.
"Boring, tired libertarian talking points"
Yes, libertarian talking points, but also logically and ethically coherent and sound points, which no statist, as far as my knowledge goes, has ever offered an adequate rebuttal to.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Rebuttal is easy...we live in the real world and not an abstract conceptual model. Models are useful to test ideas, a thought experiment. The current systems are the direct result of social, environmental and technological developments....which make a libertarianism impossible.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
@EvilEuropean
Another hard nose realist.
DKshad0w 1 year ago
@EvilEuropean -- Libertarianism is the future of the world! Right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism are ideologies of pure stupidity and depravity which are DOOMED!!
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
Boring monotone.
formless777 1 year ago
"Libertarians, especially of the Objectivist stripe, may disagree with me on that, is that I have no problem whatsoever with people pooling their resources to achieve a common goal or having privately run charities"
I agree. The Objectivist issue is that such charity shouldn't be extolled as a "primary moral good" or a "duty". The act of volitionally giving to a charity they value for it's virtues doesn't conflict with Objectivist ethics- especially if it's a teaching "hand up", not a hand out.
1RationalMind 1 year ago 2
Are you Russian?
Simon76373958573633 1 year ago
In the US at least, it is a myth that you are taxed at the point of a gun. You can refuse to pay taxes all you want and you won't go to jail. Any form of debtors prison is unconstitutional. People go to prison for lying about their income of failure to report it. Yes, the government can take property for not paying debts just as banks, auto repair shops, contractors, etc... but they can not imprison you for not paying taxes. Don't like paying taxes? Go start a commune in the mountains.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik So you've not heard of Ed and Elaine Brown... they are in prison for the rest of their lives for not paying taxes.
You're just plain wrong.
As for the "if you don't like it you can leave argument," What you are really saying is that if you don't acknowledge the States right to aggress against you, you can just leave. It's morally repugnant.
It's like saying, if you don't want me to beat you when I rob you, you shouldn't be home when I show up. You being home implies consent.
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration Edward Brown was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, 31 U.S.C. § 5325 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), and one count of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik So it's not tax evasion if we don't actually call it tax evasion... we say structuring financial transaction to evade Treasury reporting.
The point is a non violent, though misguided, elderly couple were imprisoned, effectively for life, for wanting to be left alone. You're OK with that?
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration Tax evasion is fraudulent reporting of income, hiding assets, claiming legal status that is false. Fraud to avoid paying debts is illegal. You file your taxes honestly and you won't go to jail whether or not you pay. End of story. Is this point too subtle for you?
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik It's irrelevant. If you support throwing non violent people in jail for failing to properly fill out a form, particularly when the tax code (over a million words) is constantly changing, without notice, you are immoral.
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration Yes, which is why deliberate fraud is part of the burden of proof. Simple confusion and mistakes can result in monetary penalties but tax evasion is fraud and requires proof of intent. You are creating a straw man fallacy.
What is just immoral is being a parasite on our society and thinking you have the right to avoid paying for it.
michalchik 1 year ago
On to the second point.
You drive on the public roads you agree to the rules of the road, you use this society to make money, you agree to obey the rules necessary to make this society work including taxes. The penalty is not getting shot or imprisoned; it is getting your assets seized just like any breach of contract. If you try to defraud someone including the government then you go to prison.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik Right.. a contract I signed when I was an infant which entitles a percentage of any of my income be taken without my consent in perpetuity. A contract I have never actually seen which is not binding in any way except as a means of justifying my obligations to the state... that contract.
The roads are an imposed government monopoly. I would love private roads.
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration No, it is a contract that is paid on the basis of services rendered. You chose to live in this society you have to pay for access. Police, fire, currency, military defense, educated population, disease control, clean air water food, scientific research, protection form fraud, protection from monopoly pricing, licensing of doctors and on. The government has only stepped in where private ventures have failed. You are just oblivious to how good you have it.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik Service I don't want and didn't ask for, and which the government is under no obligation to provide. If my house catches fire and the FD doesn't make it in time, are they liable? If I am robbed or murdered are the police obligated to solve the crime? If the military "defends" me by training and arming people who would later become terrorist, do I get a refund? No, but I still have to pay or else. Governments provide 'services' the same way the mafia provides 'protection'.
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration If you don't want these services find some places without them. Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, or go live in the wilderness you have lots of choices. If you want to live as part of civilization and enjoy its prosperity you have to pay for it.
If the fire department doesn't make to your house in time you can take it up with the city or the courts. Elect a new mayor, create a stink, get people fired. That is the point of democracy.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik
"If you don't want these services find some places without them"
Love it or leave it argument = Epic fail
Guncriminal 1 year ago
@noadmiration In sum you are just plain wrong. Fact check next time before you shoot off your mouth.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik OK
Martin Luther King Jr., Wesley Snipes, Method Man, Richard Pryor, Al Capone, Sophia Loren, Leona Helmsley...
All were arrested and spent time in prison for tax evasion. We only know about them because they also happened to be famous. I'm sure there are many more we will never hear about... what was that about fact checking?
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration And your point would be? People go to jail when they commit crimes like fraud. If the next automechanic you visited sold your car instead and then when you sued him and won, he emptied his bank accounts and his the money, do you think he should get away with it or go to jail.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik
"You can refuse to pay taxes all you want and you won't go to jail."
Kent Hovind thought that too.
"Go start a commune in the mountains"
No, you'll still be taxed there, too.
Guncriminal 1 year ago
@Guncriminal Been through this discussion already. Please read the other comments.
michalchik 1 year ago
dude...can hardly hear you...
revolt81 1 year ago
I work for the Australian Tax Office. I don't particularly like my job but I fully embrace the Tax Office's purpose. No guns are used. Legal action is a last resort. If people do their utmost to avoid paying their legal dues how would you get people to contribute voluntarily? How would you set up and administer this utopia of yours?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago 2
@AuntieDiluvian In other words, your work does involve exactly what he was talking about.
BacchanalianJ 1 year ago
@BacchanalianJ We are there to ensure people pay their FAIR share in order to finance roads, hospitals and schools, pensions, allowances, accident insurance and so on.. The people who commit the biggest frauds are rarely the ones who struggle to get by, but the ones who can afford 'creative' accountants and good lawyers.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian "No guns are used. Legal action is a last resort." These two statements conflict- the legal action results in the use of guns if payment of tax is still resisted- no? While voluntary taxes are ideal- it's really not so much about the act of compulsory taxation as it is what the taxes are used for. Every individual has the right of self-defense, the right to repel the initiation of force from others- in our "utopia" that is the ONLY right citizens can delegate to government.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind Police here are rarely armed, and people arrested for tax crime are usually bailed to appear rather than remanded in custody. As it is a non-violent crime no guns are usually needed.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian That's certainly more tempered than the US government reaction. I know from personal experience that when taxes are delinquent here, the IRS begins with serious phone threats to confiscate your home or car, & they will follow through. They contacted my employer and increased my tax rate immediately to cover the (less than $10K) deficiency. We had to "sweet talk them with promises" to get them to back down. Here- the IRS is LITERALLY a team of gangster thugs with extensive power.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind Sounds like a fairly badly-run and ineffective organisation. Confiscation as a straight-off option is very heavy-handed and more likely to lead to huge resentment and more non-compliance.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian Huge resentment indeed. The actions of the IRS, combined with an attitude among the citizens & politicians that I am to be "morally compelled" to support my fellow citizens by compulsion, & that- as Obama puts it- they have the 'right' to "Spread my wealth around". Has led me to despise this country. Two centuries ago it had the best chance of being a truly free & moral society, and the citizens destroyed it, willingly, piece by piece.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian If we didn't rape women, how would we have sex?
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration That response is in extremely bad taste and incredibly stupid. People who whinge about paying tax are hardly likely to be philanthropists, in my experience. They may donate to a few charities to help ease their consciences, but helping to prop up a whole society with voluntary giving? Don't make me laugh.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian It may be in bad taste. It's also a very direct point. You cannot force people to pay for services, and then claim that they want your services. In fact the amount of force required is inversely proportional to the amount they don't want to pay. Your question illustrates that you have limited understanding of economics and intensives. You seem to assume that people who will pay for Tim Tams and iPods wont pay for roads or schools. I find that logic bizarre.
noadmiration 1 year ago
@noadmiration Ipods and roads are very different, literally and figuratively. An iPod is something I use, and practically no one else uses my iPod. A hospital or a road is used by others and I may never need to use them. I may not have school age children. Good luck getting people to pay voluntarily for stuff other people need and I don't. The basic human condition is 'someone else will fix it.'
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian So you don't have shopping malls in Australia? Or private schools? Or cell phone networks? If there is a genuine market demand for services, then the market will provide them. If there isn't, then no one should be compelled to pay for them, just because some people think they are a good idea. Why should people pay for things they don't want? In the US roads, schools, and hospitals all started out as private enterprises before being forcibly taken over by the government..
noadmiration 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian:
"No guns are used. Legal action is a last resort."
And what would that "last resort" involve if not throwing people in a box and turning them into swiss cheese should they resist being thrown in a box, pray tell?
"how would you get people to contribute voluntarily? "
And how do you KNOW they won't contribute voluntarily? Maybe they want to donate some of the money which the bureaucrats extorts from them at the point of a gun to some private charity, who knows?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma We do not shoot people for tax fraud. They may get a short jail sentence in rare cases. I don't KNOW they won't contribute voluntarily but I very much doubt it. Like the existence of god really.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian:
"How would you set up and administer this utopia of yours?"
Administer? You assume as if there MUST be some kind of centralized, coercive mechanism to administer the "utopia", which is of course a fallacy. And since a utopia would necessarily be authoritarian, if not totalitarian(As Karl Popper points out in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies), my way of thinking is very un-utopian.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma You avoided the question. So do you have laws? Do you have deterrants against crime in this Anarchist society? Who makes the important decisions? What if people disagree? My use of the word 'Utopia' was just as a euphemism for some ideal world - I didn't mean it in the Marxian sense.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
1. Akatam0t0ma is a libertarian minarchist not an anarchist.
2. The answer is through smaller mutual aid societies. And if people disagree they can use private defence agencies or peoples militias against one another. But without a huge monopoly on force (the state) with ideological support giving it an infinite supply of money to wage war on people throughout the world, any conflicts would be short lived.
Anarchists HAVE answered this a million times, just google it please
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman So you're talking about a society full of co-ops. The question remains, how are you going to implement this? Will you start with a few willing participants moving to their own 'societies'? I'd prefer you to tell me rather than having to look in Google - I'd prefer to know you could articulate your own views which may or may not be what I could find in Google.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
There are lots of different strategies to implement it that people want to try. Some anarchists just want to participate in politics and vote for as many small government types as possible aka Ron Paul, and then hopefully secede as early as possible if the state does not then dssappear by itself.
Others think the best way is to create coops and societies that compete with the public ones and get popular support from doing so. Im only 18 but when im older im hoping to do that
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman:
"Akatam0t0ma is a libertarian minarchist not an anarchist."
Actually, I still remain very much on the fence on whether I consider myself a miniarchist or ancap. Just to clarify.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian "Do you have deterrants against crime in this Anarchist society?" Libertarianism is not (usually) = to anarchism (though it's a variant). As a means of conducting a society, anarchism is irrational & impossible. The result has been displayed over & over- it results in warring gangs, & the gang leaders become the authority, essentially negating the "anarchy". Libertarians like me know there is a need for military, police & courts. & that anarchism is irrational & unsustainable.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind Who funds the police and the courts and the military? If I live in your society and benefit from your police, will you make me pay a levy for their services or will someone else step in if I don't want to pay? Why would you not have 'state' hospitals and schools? These aren't meant to sound like facetious questions - I am interested to hear how you would design your society.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian The citizens fund the military, police & courts- yes the taxes would have to be compulsory, in a citizenry as we have today, but the goal would be to eventually have a rational citizenry that understood the need & gave voluntarily. State schools & hospitals are my "weak spots", honestly. I struggle with those issues. I would support them, but I can't morally justify compulsory taxes to support them. You just "hit me below the belt", I'll have you know! :)
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind :) In an egalitarian society religion does less damage and has less of a stronghold then where there are poor and sick and uneducated people, so as long as your society can provide for the people who can't contribute for some reason, may you live long and prosper. I appreciate the conversation.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian It is my sincere hope that basic human compassion, without reliance on god figures, could be fostered such that most felt the desire to help others grow to respectable self-reliance if possible, and would provide caring support when self-reliance is not possible.
May you live long and prosper as well! :) Rational, civil conversation is always welcome & appreciated.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind
I find it so sad that objectivists so easily just brush statelessness aside. You acknowlede that it is funded on violence and is inefficient at everything else it does right?
Stateless Ireland and Iceland were stable socities filled with smaller communities and small armies that only claimed ownership over homesteaded land. They only became pardon the expression ehem* UTTER SHITHOLES when christian missionaries came over and indoctrinated/forced people into statism again.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman no need to add statism "again" there*
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman Objectivism advocates voluntarily supported minarchy. Ideally, taxes would be voluntary, though transitioning to such a society would take time, considering our current society. No immoral violence by government upon citizens would be condoned. The government would be limited to the enforcement of objective laws that only deal with countering the immoral initiation of force.
If a government of people can't conduct itself so, a group of people with no government will not fare better.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind
a group of people cooperating basically is a government.
But an unaccountable oligarchy excercising in forced taxation is what anarchists are opposed to.
But again, you would like voluntarily supported minarchy huh? well if you add unlimited secession to that then youre really no different to the typical voluntariyist, of which individualist/market anarchists are included in :)
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman "But an unaccountable oligarchy excercising in forced taxation is what anarchists are opposed to."
Yes, Objectivism strongly opposes such a system as well. Unlimited secession is not something I had not yet considered, nor have I read anything from Rand on the issue (not that I always agree with her, I think for myself, but my mind is often in agreement with hers.) At first thought, it seems a rational practice to advocate, as it could restore a government that strayed "off target".
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@1RationalMind
Yes, if the government fails to give the people what they want they will slowly lose their power, and if they use force to maintain them rather than appeasing them, then it will expose their weakness and instability thereby leading to their downfall.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman "Unlimited secession is *not* something I had not yet considered" No need for that first "not". Seems our typing is off today! I claim lack of caffeine, sound good to you? :)
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian The barrel of a gun is certainly waiting for someone who doesn't pay up, hmm? "How do you get people to contribute voluntarily"?.... The statist' greatest riddle.
216trixie 1 year ago
LOL @ comparing eastern Europe to western Europe.
Might as well compare the U.S. to Mexico.
Morrakiu 1 year ago
@Morrakiu:
He probably think that the reason Eastern Europe worse off is because they don't have a welfare state run by bureaucrats with hears and brains the size of bowling balls, lol.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Good points.
As an atheist I am far more informed about the virtues of the free market than 99.9% of religious people. When I listen to most religious people talk about reducing taxes and such, they seem oblivious to the effects of the central bank on our economy. They think our economic problems began with the Clinton administration.
In other words: they are much more of a threat to the free market than I am.
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100:
"They think our economic problems began with the Clinton administration."
Exactly. Most religionists in America(Like Mysticalforest, for example), and most people in general(With those who think that it's all the fault of Bush as the counterparts of those who blame it all on Clinton) do not see the issues beyond the two-party system, when in fact the crux of the issues stretches far beyond that.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Objectivists might disagree with you about people pooling their resources and forming charities?
where did you get this idea? we don't disagree with that....
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100:
"we don't disagree with that...."
Oh, you don't? Ok, I guess it was a misunderstanding on my part...
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Objectivism isn't against charity, we're against charity seen as a moral virtue, or worse: duty.
You aren't necessarily a better person if you give to charity. It depends: Is the charity really going to help? or is it just a way to relieve yourself of guilt and not do much work in the process? Are you doing it to please others or are you doing it because you've done as much studying on the subject and problem as possible and you've decided that it's the best course of action?
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 I would say the key aspect of charity within Objectivist ethics would be a rational evaluation of the virtues that a charity advocated. Charities I support advocate teaching individualism, productiveness, pride & have a goal of improving the abilities of the recipients of charity such that they will eventually not require charity, and could further provide it to others. At some point, mankind would need very little charity. Only those truly unable to be self-supportive would need it.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma
Their conditions couldn't possibly have anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union! SPEND MOAR!
Morrakiu 1 year ago
A developing economy isn't going to have as much money to spend on welfare as more developed economies. Correlation =/= causation.
How the fuck would welfare lower unemployment?
Fkn atticana, man....
Morrakiu 1 year ago
Low employment is the worst thing in the world, lets smash all windows in the country so that glass makers have jobs!!
Ilikenuman 1 year ago 2