Subject:
|
Re: Is space property?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:50:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
266 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> Frank Filz wrote in message <3A513F9C.2142BF82@mindspring.com>...
> >
> > I do find it unsettling that the majority of humanity doesn't live under
> > the same conditions I do, but I don't see a clean way to get from where
> > we are now, to a utopia where everyone has a "fair" allotment of "stuff"
> > (life necessities, goods, peace of mind, health, whatever). I'm not even
> > really sure what my definitions of "fair" and "stuff" would be (though I
> > don't feel that "fair" means we all have the same amount).
>
> I would agree that life probably can't become even mostly fair for humanity
> as a whole. However, that would be a very poor excuse not to strive to push
> things in the _direction_ of fairness, as is consistent with our more
> virtuous instincts.
And I think that the removal of forced wealth reallocation, particularly when
the wealth was not gained corruptly is unfair. Fixing that problem
would "push things in the _direction_ of fairness."
> Not exactly... if you feel that the U.S. tax system is unfair, that is fine
> by me.
There are two issues. One is that the US tax system sucks. So even if I want
to accept (incorrectly) for the sake of argument that taxation is
OK when done right, the US isn't doing it right. The other issue is that
taxation in essence isn't fair. Not only is it not fair, but it is damaging to
the people of a nation and to the economy.
> However, I also feel that it is intellectually and morally
> inconsistent for us who live as well as we do, to express an unwillingness
> to part with wealth that we don't need, regardless of whether it was
> forcibly taken or not.
How do you find it inconsistent? I happen to think that I have an obligation
to help people in general. That is a big chunk of what I call being
one of the good guys. And I am. When people need help, I am often willing to
do so. But my obligation to help people does not in any way
give me the right to force you to help people. Even with the best of
intentions, that is slavery or theft.
I have proven time and again that I willing to part with money voluntarily to
support causes that I value even when there is no direct payoff for
me. It feels good to be a part of making things better. But I resent the hell
out of taxation (as if you hadn't gathered).
If someone breaks into my house to take my TV, I won't stop to ascertain
whether they're just trying to feed their starving baby. I'll just shoot
them in the torso. They don't belong in my house. Does that seem crazy? But
if they came up to my door, knocked, explained their situation
and asked for help, they would find that I work for a major manufacturer of
infant formula that I can get dirt cheap.
So I'm still a little hung up on the inconsistent thing. Inconsistent with
what? I would understand if you thought it was rude, uncaring, bad, unfair,
etc.
> It was the actual expression of unwillingness which
> offended my sense of fairness. I don't think mandatory tax is necessarily
> fair, but I quite willingly pay my tax because 1) my lifestyle is good in
> spite of it, and 2) it eases my conscience to know that it has at least a
> _chance_ of lessening the imbalance between my lifestyle and that of the
> less fortunate, or helping to create a common good.
_You_ know that it has a chance of helping out, right? But what I know is that
I don't have that ~50% of my income anymore and that ~75%
of it will be wasted in the bureaucracy and of the other 25% that actually goes
to some kind of program, more than half of that will be funding
activities that are at least likely to be unethical. When you pay your
government to kill people, it is the moral equivalent of killing them yourself.
Do you think that killing folks is OK, but resisting taxation is not? But what
about the remainder that isn't immorally spent? About half of that is
spent on stupid stuff with good intentions and the other half does real good.
So for every $1.00 I make, $.375 goes to maintain the bureaucracy, $.065 goes
to fund unethical stuff, $.0325 goes to silly stuff, and the final
three and a quarter cents actually helps people. It looks to me like on the
whole, paying taxes sucks. In fact, I'll tell you what. If you build a
society with no taxation after the fashion that I'm interested in, I'll move in
and promise for the rest of my life to donate 25% of my earnings to
good causes.
It's not the giving up of funds to help others that's the problem. It's the
armed thuggery that we all seem to accept like cows heading for
slaughter.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Is space property?
|
| (...) Just a minor nitpick; if the money to fund such killings is taken from you against your will and beyond your reasonable power to resist, you are not morally responsible for what is done with that money. If a person breaks into your house and (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is space property?
|
| Frank Filz wrote in message <3A513F9C.2142BF82@m...ng.com>... (...) I would agree that life probably can't become even mostly fair for humanity as a whole. However, that would be a very poor excuse not to strive to push things in the _direction_ of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
