Subject:
|
Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 02:37:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1643 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > As one of your factorees :) and so I assume one of the people you
> > are talking about
> > I rather resent the implication that my political views could have any
> > bearing on how trustworthy I might be in any trading.
>
> I know this is Larry's argument, but why would you resent that? If
> Larry is risking his money and reputation, he should be able to consider
> anything he wants when making the decisions on who is trustworthy.
> Right? And why wouldn't political views matter? Listen to what he's saying.
But Larry appears to be making what to me look like some rather strange
connections. Leaving aside the question of the morals of taxation - which I'll
comment on below, we have:
1. I have consistently argued that it is right for Governments to use some
tax revenue for purposes like making sure everyone has a chance to
work for some kind of decent life.Taxation is open - the Governments are
quite upfront about what the tax rates will be etc.[1]. There's no element of
dishonesty there that I can see. A big part of taxation is also that the money
is taken from *everyone* who can afford it.
2. Larry has interpreted it that someone arguing (1) above is likely to
believe there is nothing wrong with lying (which you would have to do in order
to renege on a deal), or with singling out one single individual to take money
from for redistributive purposes (and misleading that individual in the
process).
I just don't see the connection. I firmly believe
(A) in people making a fair
contribution to the society in which they live, through things like being
honest, fair to others, etc. and paying a reasonable amount of taxation.
(B) I also highly value honour - in the sense of being scrupulously honest,
keeping
to your word, and again treating others fairly. In fact I'd say that kind
of 'honour'
is one of the most important values to me.
Now I have no trouble in
reconciling all those beliefs - they appear quite compatible to me - seems
to me they fit together very well. Larry appears to have assumed that
a belief in (A) implies that you cannot believe (B). That's nonsensical to me.
> I have, but only a weak one that I would have trouble convincing people
> of due to lack of rigor in my observations. If you are trustworthy,
> despite your politics, then I suspect you're uncomfortable with one of
> two things: 1) doing the actual stealing yourself - you'd rather hide
> behind agents of the government for your pillage, or 2) you feel that
> when you've committed to something you have a responsibility to be true,
> and taxation falls outside that scope since you've never committed not
> to support it. (Actually I would guess that you fit both of those.)
OK - back to the raw politics :) This term 'stealing' is a word that you,
Larry, and quite a few other people have been throwing around a lot - and
in my view completely incorrectly.
As I've said before all of us in the industrialised countries who have decent
incomes etc. have benefited hugely from the infrastructure of those
countries/communities in which we live. If we have good standards of living,
then that comes partly from our own efforts at whatever our jobs are and
partly from the efforts of our Governments and a huge number of other people
and organizations who have and continue to build and maintain that
infrastructure
(and that infrastructure does include the fact that everyone is given certain
basic opportunities and rights).
Yet you and others argue that you should take all the fruits of that yourself,
and
not allow the Government or the wider community any of the benefits of their
efforts. From my point of view, it is *you*, *Larry* and others who argue
similarly
who are arguing that you should be allowed to steal. You are arguing that you
should effectively steal that money that rightfully belongs to the Government
in
return for all its work, and which the Government claims through taxation.
From the moment you were born you've benefitted from all the things like
the police force - getting an education, etc. etc. a lot of infrastructure
exists
*because* people before you paid for it through their taxes. Seems there's a
lot you've taken advantage of, and therefore quite a big debt there.
Since a lot of people here are arguing for the right not to pay much or
anything
in taxes [2] and a lot of people are making a big issue about property and not
taking from other people (values I fully agree with) - it intrigues me that
there
doesn't seem to be any chorus of people here clamouring for the chance to
pay off those debts. I wonder why....
So since as far as I can see, you and Larry are arguing that you should be
allowed to steal from the community, should I not be wary of trading with you,
since by your morals you might steal from me too (I'm part of the community in
my own country).
Of course, I don't go that far because I recognise that your political views
don't
really have any bearing on how honest you are.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
[1] I guess you could argue about some forms of hidden taxation, like the UK's
VAT, but I don't think that detracts from the main point.
[2] To be fair, Larry and a few others have tried to think up schemes by which
they
don't benefit from anything the Government does - but so far they don't seem to
have come up with anything that looks remotely workable.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
