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:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:29:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1617 times
|
| |
|
|
<37D3BBC5.77DE038A@eclipse.net> <FHpz9y.Mq4@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Simon, thanks for taking the time for this.
Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> 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
I have heard (but not verified) that US tax code is so large and
convoluted that it's really impossible for any one person to know all of
it. That means that an accountant who does nothing but taxes still
doesn't know everything there is to know about their job. I wouldn't
call that open and upfront.
> dishonesty there that I can see. A big part of taxation is also that the money
> is taken from *everyone* who can afford it.
Right, everyone is singled out. :-)
> 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
That's not quite how I see it. I think that it's more true to say that
he figures that someone who believes that it is _sometimes_ appropriate
to rob from the rich and give to the poor is more likely to rob from him
(rich) for their own gain (poor) than is someone who thinks that such
action is _always_ wrong. I think he's right. And he has stated that
this is a weak correlation, not the end-all be-all of determining
honesty.
[snip]
> 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.
That's not at all what he has said or implied. If he believed what you
are attributing to him, I'm quite sure he would not trade with you
because it be a sure thing that you would rip him off.
> 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.
OK, let's look at it. I'll go statement by statement and then I'll try
to put them together logically.
> 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.
Agreed. I am quite certain that if I had been born a Rwandan my life
would be very different (less LEGO).
> 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).
Agreed still. But I don't feel like I'm painting myself into a corner yet.
> 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.
Bzzzzzt! Thanks for playing. I've never claimed that. Charity is a
wonderful thing. Larry often regales us with stories of his charitable
contributions - stories I can't match with much lower income and huge
student debt, but I still find free money to donate to my local worthy
causes. I do give time (not recently) and money to the community. So there!
That's what I don't think. What I do think is that no one has the right
to take my goods and then just magically make them theirs. No matter
how you dress that up, it's stealing.
> From my point of view, it is *you*, *Larry* and others who argue
> similarly who are arguing that you should be allowed to steal.
I guess I just think your point of view is wrong. That's certainly not
what I think. let's go on.
> 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.
OK, a couple years ago, I had a contractor out to my house to help do
the complex parts of remodeling the bathroom. He and I wrote up a
contract where we clearly listed what services he would perform and how
much and when I would pay him for those services. I was bound to follow
that contract just as he was. Had I not done so, I would have been
essentially stealing. I have to contract with my government. I refuse
to inherit debt. Heritable debt is evil.
I agree that I benefit from public infrastructure. That infrastructure
is there. It has been paid for, right? If not, whose fault is it?
Certainly not mine. Why am I libel? My parents and grandparents have
been paying for that infrastructure. Additionally, since I don't have a
contract with my government, I don't know what to expect. And quite
frankly, if we were to draw up a contract, I wouldn't sign it because I
think the cost/benefit ratio is way, WAY, !!!WAY!!! too high. I would
prefer to pay fees for the services I use and want and to not pay for
the things I don't. I don't want to steal from the public coffers
(well, not in particular...well, actually I do, but that's another
argument) I just want control of my goods.
> 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.
Good, we agree that the infrastructure I've benefited from has already
been paid for. So now I can start choosing to pay, or not, for
government provided services.
> Seems there's a
> lot you've taken advantage of, and therefore quite a big debt there.
I still refuse to be saddled with a debt to which I have never agreed.
If you're cool with that, then you owe me $10,000US and we need to
discuss the payment plan.
> Since a lot of people here are arguing for the right not to pay much or
> anything
Anything is me...I'm probably the most hard-line minarchist here.
> 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....
I work to pay off my debts (the one that really exist, not the ones that
I had no say in) within the framework of the agreed upon system for repayment.
> 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).
Why, if you believe that, then I should think you would use it as a data
point when making decisions about trustworthiness. Maybe not the
deciding factor, but one of many variables that goes into such a decision.
> 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.
Oh, but I still think they do.
--Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
