The Poor Keep Themselves Poor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You have closeted lib'rul SSSocialistic tendencies, and won't even admit it.

Tell me, how can children or young people with cancer possibly meet your standards of working for their worth? They shouldn't have our medical efforts, because they haven't been incentivized? Are they being rewarded for being lazy just to get their chemo?

---

My wife's care was taken care of by health insurance at one of the best cancer treatment hospitals in the world. Our church helped some as did her family. No one was *forced* to part with their earned money.

And personally I find you bringing up this subject multiple times incredibly rude and obnoxious.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ci...k_IV/Chapter_4

You're wrong, Loki. People in the US don't have to generate income (profit) to survive. They can barter with others, live off the land, grow their own food, harvest seeds, can and preserve foods, find used clothes, migrate according to the weather and crops, use nothing but sun and trees for energy, drink water from streams or lakes, shun all sorts of modern commerce. They can avoid paying income taxes, but not necessarily service or commodity taxes.

It all depends on whether they drive a car, ride a bike, hike a trail, or hop a train. It's a very small minority that does this, but the fact that they do, and CAN.....negates your hypothesis.

We're talking about taxation in general. Why do you keep on trying to twist this into some inane debate about income and sales taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

If it is, and you wish to participate, or have participated in that society, you should pay for its costs. If you are debating that you pay too much for additional services you do not want, that is fine, but exclaiming that taxes overall are not a voluntary exchange, some form of theft, punishment, or forced suffering is silly and overly dramatic.

---

Whether you want to pay it and see the return to society, or should, or any other opinion regarding its viability is completely irrelevant to the fact that taxation is an economic taking. That is its fundamental structure, same as it is for the normal US example of a taking, eminent domain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

My wife's care was taken care of by health insurance at one of the best cancer treatment hospitals in the world. Our church helped some as did her family. No one was *forced* to part with their earned money.

And personally I find you bringing up this subject multiple times incredibly rude and obnoxious.

---

Note I didn't bring up your wife, you did.

I'm just trying to make you see that plenty of people, especially children, benefit from a benevolent society. The kind that isn't keeping track of hours worked, dollars made, insurance products purchased. The kind of society that's willing to pool resources and provide services to those who need them---not deciding who's more worthy---and not having to rely on charity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

For the last time, this is irrelevant to the question of whether taxation is coercion. You cannot use a utilitarian argument to prove whether an act is coercive or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Whether you want to pay it and see the return to society, or should, or any other opinion regarding its viability is completely irrelevant to the fact that taxation is an economic taking. That is its fundamental structure, same as it is for the normal US example of a taking, eminent domain.

---

It is entirely relevant. Would most reasonable people want a world devoid of a working society? No. Does providing one cost money? Yes. If not by taxation, how do you expect a functional society to exist? We have obviously not reached the level of maturity as species whereby it will be self generating and sustaining, so the payment of the resources necessary to sustain it are a requirement. If it is a requirement of society to have taxation, it seems absurd to consider taxes theft, blackmail, coercion, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

It is entirely relevant. Would most reasonable people want a world devoid of a working society? No. Does providing one cost money? Yes. If not by taxation, how do you expect a functional society to exist? We have obviously not reached the level of maturity as species whereby it will be self generating and sustaining, so the payment of the resources necessary to sustain it are a requirement. If it is a requirement of society to have taxation, it seems absurd to consider taxes theft, blackmail, coercion, etc.

---

Illusions, you DO know what we mean when we say "taking" right? You understand what that means as an economic concept?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

We're talking about taxation in general. Why do you keep on trying to twist this into some inane debate about income and sales taxes?

---

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up taxation. And I'm not the one "twisting" a thread about how The Poor Keep Themselves Poor by trying to connect it to taxation.

:bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

It is entirely relevant. Would most reasonable people want a world devoid of a working society? No. Does providing one cost money? Yes. If not by taxation, how do you expect a functional society to exist? We have obviously not reached the level of maturity as species whereby it will be self generating and sustaining, so the payment of the resources necessary to sustain it are a requirement. If it is a requirement of society to have taxation, it seems absurd to consider taxes theft, blackmail, coercion, etc.

---

Non sequitur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Illusions, you DO know what we mean when we say "taking" right? You understand what that means as an economic concept?

---

Taking is one word. I've seen Loki use coercion, and blackmail, and Rand use theft, and suffering. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Non sequitur.

---

It does follow. If taxes are coercion or theft, or whatever other overly dramatic action you'd like to use, what is your alternative with which you'd pay for society. I'll at least give you necessary evil, but somehow I think you'd rather use a word that implies we're being punished, and there existed some alternative that the government is keeping from us...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Taking is one word. I've seen Loki use coercion, and blackmail, and Rand use theft, and suffering. :bored:.

---

And punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

No one is forcing you to be alive? You can't not get the advantages of policed streets, or the existence of hospitals. You can't choose to forgo getting educated *truancy is illegal, and if parents actually tried to keep their kids from getting an education, social services would take them away* You can't opt out of society in any real way. You "used a service" the instant your birth certificate was created, which is certainly not something you had or ever would have a choice about. Taxation is a taking. It doesn't matter if you get something in return for it, it is not a free exchange of services. Your concept has armed robbery as an exchange because the victim is getting the assurance that he/she will be able to go on their way without fear after giving their attacker something. You can't construct blackmail or extortion in a space that's separate from taxation the way you're trying to interpret taxation. Actually, extortion and taxation have a number of parallels in their basic structures.

---

Technically, you're not forced to give birth in a hospital. If you give birth at home, depending on the state, you may not be required to file a legal birth certificate or apply for a SS number.

Technically, if you were born at home and have no SS # or birth certificate, the state has no idea you exist. The state can't require you to enroll in school, or receive mandated vaccination. Social Services would have no way of knowing this, let alone enforcing the kinds of things you mention. (Unless there's a complaint filed about suspected child abuse or neglect. But that would mean neighbors are keeping track, which has been proven flimsy at best.)

Granted, you can't do much in integrated society without a birth certificate or SSN. Can't get a driver's license, apply for a loan, open a bank account, get a credit card, fly on a commercial airline, cross international borders. But certain households have shown just how much you can do living off the grid and out of sight of government officials. You can be a day laborer, live in a commune, even visit a physician accepting cash, and get prescriptions medications (dispensed as samples).

You can engage in cash commerce, have a computer, cell phone, and internet access. You can't get public utilities without a SSN, but many places don't even offer public utilities (like water, sewer, natural gas).

Still, it can be done. If chosen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Taking is one word. I've seen Loki use coercion, and blackmail, and Rand use theft, and suffering. :bored:

---

I used blackmail and extortion as structural analogies myself. Because that is the freaking structure. The conversation took this direction because you had to try and insist that taxation was a voluntary exchange when I told you that you could claim it wasn't a punishment to your hearts content but you could not claim it was a payment and retain any factual or conceptual accuracy whatsoever.

A farmer wants the county to expand the road his farm abuts, add a lane. He lobbies his state assemblmen, and his country commissioner. He harangues meetings of the local Planning and Zones commission. He points out that he's the only property owner whose land the expansion would cover. It finally happens and the local government pays him market value for the land which they claim via eminent domain. The whole area benefits from the arrangement. Guess what, it's not a voluntary exchange, it's a taking. It doesn't matter one goddamn that it's what he wanted because his consent doesn't mean squat in the exercise of eminent domain. It is not a contract, it is a decree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I used blackmail and extortion as structural analogies myself. Because that is the freaking structure.

---

So we live in some fucked up world where blackmail and extortion results in people getting something that is better than if they had not been blackmailed or extorted, and they feel pissed off about this (see Rand who equates taxes with apparently, now with Ziggy's reminder, suffering, theft, and punishment)? Then refuse to detail functional alternatives whereby we could forgo the blackmail and extortion (see Loki)? Yeah, no, you're right, your position, and Loki's and Rand's is far more reasonable and sensible than my view that taxes are simply a payment we make for the benefits of society we use.

I've ignored your example because it involved a voluntary choice by the farmer whereby he detailed he was willing to exchange land (a resource) for another resource (a larger road). He could have forgone having a larger road and kept his land. Come back to me when they forcefully take it and I'll detail this as an abuse of government power, and an acceptable argument for being upset with the amount of taxes paid for services rendered. I'm also arguing about taxation from the viewpoints of those posting on this forum. I would not be arguing this viewpoint if the forum were instead a small campfire in medieval Europe and the person collecting them was a tyrant. The difference is in one at least some of our money is ensuring a functional society, whereas in other it wasn't. :bored:

<A farmer can expand the road his farm abuts by (a) asking his neighbor if he agrees to widening the road or adding a new lane, and file updated property lines with the county as needed, or (b) expand the road on his own property, using his own resources to make the new lane. He doesn't necessarily have to ask the county for funds, or lobby government official. That's a bad example for eminent domain abuse, Fuzzy. Let alone taxation as an involuntary 'taking'.>

Epiphany: My main problem is that I see people, Rand and Loki, using the benefits of a functional society who are then complaining or even claiming that they are being punished or forced to suffer when asked to give back in the form of their resources to ensure that this society keeps existing. They aren't even arguing the amount, just that they have to give at all. It comes off as selfish and entitled, and frankly unappreciative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Epiphany: My main problem is that I see people using the benefits of a functional society, Rand and Loki, who are then complaining or even claiming that they are being punished or forced to suffer when asked to give back in the form of their resources to ensure that this society keeps existing. They aren't even arguing the amount, just that they have to give at all. It comes off as selfish and entitled, and frankly unappreciative.

---

My main problem is Rand's confusing double standards. He whines about certain taxes as punishment, or some kind of forced taking from wage-earners. Then, almost in the same breath, he says he likes the UK national health service, and thinks it's a good system! Well, as long as it's not helping those lazy good-for-nothings that abuse the system.

:confused:


edit

But I agree with your premise, Illusions. We can only have a vibrant and functional society with some degree of taxation that feeds infrastructure. Roads, transit, schools, teachers, fire and police. If all those things were "voluntary" contributions, our society wouldn't be what it is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

You do have a choice. It just so happens to be a choice that you aren't willing to make, but you still have it.

---

No you don't. I have no choice.

Quote:

---

The homeless and destitute don't pay taxes. Thats pretty damn close to opting out of society and negating most benefits you receive from the government, although you still will receive protection via the police, military and legal system.

---

I can't and nor can an entire town declare UDI so no, you can't "opt-out".

Quote:

---

How do you get money from these banks that aren't back by the government?

---

Go to the bank and ask for the money. That's how money started, as an IOU - not government back. Governments annexed it, it was not their idea.

Quote:

---

It is a voluntary exchange. You've used a service, so you pay for it. What you're trying to tell me is equivalent to if I walked into a shop, used their services, I should be free to leave and decide whether or not I should give them my money, regardless of how much of their time and resources I've used, because otherwise if they ask me for money in return, which I must pay them, I did not engage in a voluntary exchange? Are you mad? No one is forcing you to make money, no one is forcing you to have and own property, etc., you choose to do so because the alternative is not something you want. No one is even forcing you to participate in society, but again you obviously feel what you currently have is better than the alternative.

---

I never walked in, it was not optional. That's like saying you're forced to go to to the shop and buy.

Quote:

---

You seem horrifically entitled to the resources and time that other people have necessarily paid to ensure society keeps running smoothly, but don't seem to want to pay in yourself, or even seem to have little grasp on how different things would be without a functioning government. Very likely you would be dead. Other people's tax dollars have ensured that you are not.

---

I'm happy to pay that which is reasonable, doesn't mean its optional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

My main problem is Rand's confusing double standards. He whines about certain taxes as punishment, or some kind of forced taking from wage-earners. Then, almost in the same breath, he says he likes the UK national health service, and thinks it's a good system! Well, as long as it's not helping those lazy good-for-nothings that abuse the system.

---

Certain taxes are punishment, almost all taxes are forced takings. Some of it is necessary, but its still forced. That's like someone arguing that conscription isn't forced as its deemed necessary, of course it is!

Quote:

---

But I agree with your premise, Illusions. We can only have a vibrant and functional society with some degree of taxation that feeds infrastructure. Roads, transit, schools, teachers, fire and police. If all those things were "voluntary" contributions, our society wouldn't be what it is today.

---

Nobodies disputing that but Illusions. Illusions is pretending it is "voluntary".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Epiphany: My main problem is that I see people, Rand and Loki, using the benefits of a functional society who are then complaining or even claiming that they are being punished or forced to suffer when asked to give back in the form of their resources to ensure that this society keeps existing. They aren't even arguing the amount, just that they have to give at all. It comes off as selfish and entitled, and frankly unappreciative.

---

The intellectual dishonesty is strong in this one. Please come back when you actually figure out what this argument is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Epiphany: My main problem is that I see people, Rand and Loki, using the benefits of a functional society who are then complaining or even claiming that they are being punished or forced to suffer when asked to give back in the form of their resources to ensure that this society keeps existing. They aren't even arguing the amount, just that they have to give at all. It comes off as selfish and entitled, and frankly unappreciative.

---

And bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Certain taxes are punishment, almost all taxes are forced takings.

---

And most taxes are designed by law, from our elected legislators, to keep society functioning at a certain level.

Quote:

---

Some of it is necessary, but its still forced. That's like someone arguing that conscription isn't forced as its deemed necessary, of course it is!

---

Bad analogy, don't ya think?

Quote:

---

Nobodies disputing that but Illusions. Illusions is pretending it is "voluntary".

---

Not speaking for Illusions, but I think the point is...you do have options, you just don't like them. Move to Haiti if you don't want to pay UK taxes. Hell, move to the upper northwest US or Canada, there are still regions you can live "unmolested" by taxation. It'd be quite a hard life style, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

And most taxes are designed by law, from our elected legislators, to keep society functioning at a certain level.

---

Not disputing that.

Quote:

---

Bad analogy, don't ya think?

---

Perfect analogy: Forced takings, designed by law, from our elected legislators, to keep society functioning at a certain level. All of that applies to democracies with conscription.

Quote:

---

Not speaking for Illusions, but I think the point is...you do have options, you just don't like them. Move to Haiti if you don't want to pay UK taxes. Hell, move to the upper northwest US or Canada, there are still regions you can live "unmolested" by taxation. It'd be quite a hard life style, though.

---

I'm not a citizen of them.

Er. What does the conscript or his society get out of conscription?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not disputing that.
Perfect analogy: Forced takings, designed by law, from our elected legislators, to keep society functioning at a certain level. All of that applies to democracies with conscription.
I'm not a citizen of them.

---

The US hasn't had a draft since Viet Nam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Er. What does the conscript or his society get out of conscription?

---

How is this relevant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Er. What does the conscript or his society get out of conscription?

---

Security etc

Some of you think you are unfairly burdened with higher taxes, without increased benefit, simply for being more successful. In effect a "punishment". Many of you don't seem to realize that you do get an increased benefit. Some here have brought up things like: the right to work and earn, or the protection of law, and such. But these are enjoyed by all members of society, it is not an increased benefit. Your cries of "I'm taxed more than others and then my gubmint gives it away to those less deserving" sounds like "I'm willing to help the less fortunate, but only if there is something in it for me!" Fuck that noise. You don't get better service from the government? Bullshit! One example: when public schools first started receiving computers in the classrooms, it sure as shit wasn't in the inner-city schools. No, it was middle class neighborhoods and other more affluent areas that got them first. To this day it is more common for the inner-city schools to receive the hand-me-down computers from the other districts when those schools upgrade. There are exceptions, as always. But the poor do get the proverbial, shit-end of the stick. Do you know why? Because they don't pay the same in taxes as those who can afford to live in nicer neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

I've ignored your example because it involved a voluntary choice by the farmer whereby he detailed he was willing to exchange land (a resource) for another resource (a larger road). He could have forgone having a larger road and kept his land. Come back to me when they forcefully take it and I'll detail this as an abuse of government power, and an acceptable argument for being upset with the amount of taxes paid for services rendered. I'm also arguing about taxation from the viewpoints of those posting on this forum. I would not be arguing this viewpoint if the forum were instead a small campfire in medieval Europe and the person collecting them was a tyrant. The difference is in one at least some of our money is ensuring a functional society, whereas in other it wasn't. :bored:

---

The fact that he wanted it, and would have agreed to it as an exchange does not mean it actually was voluntary or an exchange. Argue about it from whatever viewpoint you want, you can say taxation and services are the Invisible Pink Unicorn blowing bubblegum, there is only one viewpoint that matters, and that's how the legal system interprets it. Your viewpoint doesn't mean shit, the legal viewpoint is controlling. How you feel about a taking is completely irrelevant to whether it is a taking or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

<A farmer can expand the road his farm abuts by (a) asking his neighbor if he agrees to widening the road or adding a new lane, and file updated property lines with the county as needed, or (b) expand the road on his own property, using his own resources to make the new lane. He doesn't necessarily have to ask the county for funds, or lobby government official. That's a bad example for eminent domain abuse, Fuzzy. Let alone taxation as an involuntary 'taking'.>

---

It's not an example of eminent domain abuse at all. All uses of eminent domain, good, bad, desired, undesired, whatever, are takings. They're the very definition of a property taking. A taking is not good or bad or anything, it is simply a category of exchange, one that is, by definition, not a voluntary exchange of goods or services. A monetary taking is not, cannot be a payment, because that is a description for one end of a type of voluntary exchange.