Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marc,
You are starting with the assumption that the government taking resources through taxation and redistributing it in the form of public services is inherently immoral and constitutes stealing. What is your justification for that view? What moral system supports this?
College education needs to be private and for profit. The government should be out of the education business entirely, but at least the college level business for sure.
If a bank issued a credit card with a 50% APR the SEC would issue an injunction. College tuition at a third tier state college has gone from free or nearly free to $25k/yr in 50 years. Very few things have had that kind of rise in price and most of the ones that have are things people can do without... and do. Education is one of them. Colleges were closing. So college debt was made unabsolvable and so with a guarantee that they could hound debtors to the ends of the earth and garnish their wages up to 65% in some states, the marketing of higher education to a desperate Middle Class began. Employers help by requiring a four year degree for any employment that pays better than minimum wage. Hell you need a two year degree for many jobs that will only pay minimum wage. So... if college needs to be private and for profit.... then tuition needs to be indexed to the COL and retroactively so, to ~1965.
Marc,
You are starting with the assumption that the government taking resources through taxation and redistributing it in the form of public services is inherently immoral and constitutes stealing. What is your justification for that view? What moral system supports this?
He won't/can't have a sensible answer. Such anti-government talk from a real estate agent of all people is ridiculous. He would have run down neighborhoods and houses of little value to sell and have very few capable buyers in a low infrastructure (to include education) spending environment.
Taxes are very low in Guatemala, do you think he wants to go there and sell property? He even signs his real name to all his selfish and nonsensical posts (not smart).
Last edited by Back to NE; 03-24-2016 at 12:46 PM..
Reason: typo
He won't/can't have a sensible answer. Such anti-government talk from a real estate agent of all people is ridiculous. He would have run down neighborhoods and houses of little value to sell and have very few capable buyers in a low infrastructure (to include education) spending environment.
Taxes are very low in Guatemala, do you think he wants to go there and sell property? He even signs his real name to all his selfish and nonsensical posts (not smart).
I'm pro government. If that government is fulfilling a proper limited role. We should have the biggest government in the world when it comes to the military. With amazing nukes and lasers and bombs and weapons of mass destruction. And we should have a robust system of courts and law enforcement to protect the individual rights of the citizens. But that's about it. And taxation to fund all that should be voluntary.
All other services should be provided by the free market, with no government involvement other than adjudicating disputes (courts).
Can you imagine a society based on mutual respect, mutual trade, and respect for individual rights? I can. We are good enough to do that, but it starts with proposing it, and that's what I am here for!
Marc,
You are starting with the assumption that the government taking resources through taxation and redistributing it in the form of public services is inherently immoral and constitutes stealing. What is your justification for that view? What moral system supports this?
And you are starting with intentionally misusing words to confuse the situation. Redistribution is NOT providing services. Redistribution is stealing the private property from one person and handing it to another because he needs it. Providing services is a different role. A role that still needs to be very limited, but a different role altogether.
As far as my justification for the view that redistribution is wrong, it's pretty obvious. As a social animal, we benefit the most when we recognize that one person's need is not a claim on the life of another. All needs should be met through trade and voluntary cooperation. We are not born into slavery. We are not born into duty. We are not born into bondage. WE ARE NOT OUR BROTHER'S KEEPER.
Reason is man's mode of survival, and the exercise of that mode of survival in a social context requires that we agree not to use primitive animal violence in our dealings with each other. Individual rights is the primary expression of our advancement away from primitive life forms that depend on fangs and claws and speed and strength to overpower each other to survive. So the fundamental agreement in forming a society is that we recognize that our very nature and mode of survival mandates that individual rights form the basic building block upon which all else rests.
From that metaphysical fact must our politics and economics conform. So redistribution is a direct attack on that principle. Redistribution means: If I need something, I may take it if I can't find another way to get it. And that means: Since taking something from someone against their will cannot be done voluntarily, violence is the only way to force my will upon others. Ergo: Redistribution of wealth takes us back to the law of the jungle and of primitive animals. Using violence to take from others what they won't give us voluntarily. Redistribution means that the needs of one are a claim on the lives of others, and that fulfilling that claim when cooperation is declined can legitimately include the use of violent force.
I reject that principle in favor of freedom and individual rights. Everything must be acquired through cooperation and trade, and it is better to die of a need going unfulfilled than to design a system where needs are met through violence and theft. Such a system is reflective of our very nature and our means of survival: Reason.
So basically, Bernie Sanders education policy is diametrically opposed to any possible correct morality or ethical system. It rests on the collectivistic notion of egalitarianism and utilitarianism. It rests on violence and primitivism. It rests on the principles of slavery, duty, and bondage. It rests on Hell.
As far as my justification for the view that redistribution is wrong, it's pretty obvious. As a social animal, we benefit the most when we recognize that one person's need is not a claim on the life of another. All needs should be met through trade and voluntary cooperation. We are not born into slavery. We are not born into duty. We are not born into bondage. WE ARE NOT OUR BROTHER'S KEEPER.
This isn't justification. It is just further restatement of your position. Part of the deal a person makes when living in this country is compliance and acceptance of taxes in return for representation in government. One is not born with a right to not be taxed, and there is no implication that those taxes cant' be used for things like schools.
You are trying to start with some sort of "origins of primitive man" type argument, but Locke and Hobbes have already gone through such reasoning, and guess what? None of them agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Reason is man's mode of survival, and the exercise of that mode of survival in a social context requires that we agree not to use primitive animal violence in our dealings with each other. Individual rights is the primary expression of our advancement away from primitive life forms that depend on fangs and claws and speed and strength to overpower each other to survive. So the fundamental agreement in forming a society is that we recognize that our very nature and mode of survival mandates that individual rights form the basic building block upon which all else rests.
Taxing and spending is not primitive animal violence. I disagree that individual rights are the primary expression of our advancement away from primitive life forms. In fact, acting toward the benefit of a group rather than one's self is a relatively modern evolutionary advancement.
Societies are formed to get away from a situation in which individuality is all that matters. We form societies for the very purpose of reaping collective benefits. Otherwise, there is no purpose in forming societies. If man was only interested in maximizing his personal liberties, he wouldn't be a part of society. Society is, by nature, a tradeoff between personal liberty and collective benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
From that metaphysical fact must our politics and economics conform. So redistribution is a direct attack on that principle. Redistribution means: If I need something, I may take it if I can't find another way to get it. And that means: Since taking something from someone against their will cannot be done voluntarily, violence is the only way to force my will upon others. Ergo: Redistribution of wealth takes us back to the law of the jungle and of primitive animals. Using violence to take from others what they won't give us voluntarily. Redistribution means that the needs of one are a claim on the lives of others, and that fulfilling that claim when cooperation is declined can legitimately include the use of violent force.
I reject that principle in favor of freedom and individual rights. Everything must be acquired through cooperation and trade, and it is better to die of a need going unfulfilled than to design a system where needs are met through violence and theft. Such a system is reflective of our very nature and our means of survival: Reason.
So basically, Bernie Sanders education policy is diametrically opposed to any possible correct morality or ethical system. It rests on the collectivistic notion of egalitarianism and utilitarianism. It rests on violence and primitivism. It rests on the principles of slavery, duty, and bondage. It rests on Hell.
This is terrible reasoning. You work in the United States, and you live in the United States. That constitutes tacit agreement to conditions of living in the United States which include paying taxes and having some of that tax money redistributed. That is not analogous to a single person stealing from his neighbor by force in order to make a personal gain. Your continuing to live here is an agreement to these conditions, and such taxes are not theft because they are part of the agreement you make when you decide to work in this country.
I'm pro government. If that government is fulfilling a proper limited role. We should have the biggest government in the world when it comes to the military. With amazing nukes and lasers and bombs and weapons of mass destruction. And we should have a robust system of courts and law enforcement to protect the individual rights of the citizens. But that's about it. And taxation to fund all that should be voluntary.
All other services should be provided by the free market, with no government involvement other than adjudicating disputes (courts).
Can you imagine a society based on mutual respect, mutual trade, and respect for individual rights? I can. We are good enough to do that, but it starts with proposing it, and that's what I am here for!
What if I think I can protect myself, and I disagree with tax dollars being spent on the military? If I make more than you, then I am paying more money in taxes that are going to military protection for you. How is that not redistribution?
You are drawing arbitrary distinctions here.
The society you suggest would have staggering poverty and inequality. Not all men are created with equal skills and abilities, and not all people are born into equal lots in life. One purpose of the government is to ensure that the strong don't trample the weak, and that would certainly occur in a pure lassez-faire society. If we look at such a society and compare it to our current society, there is no doubt that our current society is superior. Why we would we want to trade? So we can say "At least I have the right to not pay taxes?" Hell no -- not when it comes at the cost of a happy, healthy, moderately egalitarian world.
Making something free devalues it and subjects it to abuse and misuse, not elevates it.
Google tried an experiment at one of their conferences. The first day of the conference, they stocked a table of snacks and marked the snacks free. The snacks that day were taken too quickly, leaving some people with no snacks. Some snacks were found on the ground, some thrown away, some half-eaten. The table was completely empty at mid-day.
The next day, they stocked the same table with the same snacks at the same conference but that day they made the snacks cost the going rate for the snack. The result was that people who wanted the snacks could get one and there were none discarded, half-eaten. The table still had snacks on it at the end of that day.
What if I think I can protect myself, and I disagree with tax dollars being spent on the military? If I make more than you, then I am paying more money in taxes that are going to military protection for you. How is that not redistribution?
You are drawing arbitrary distinctions here.
The society you suggest would have staggering poverty and inequality. Not all men are created with equal skills and abilities, and not all people are born into equal lots in life. One purpose of the government is to ensure that the strong don't trample the weak, and that would certainly occur in a pure lassez-faire society. If we look at such a society and compare it to our current society, there is no doubt that our current society is superior. Why we would we want to trade? So we can say "At least I have the right to not pay taxes?" Hell no -- not when it comes at the cost of a happy, healthy, moderately egalitarian world.
Under my system, all taxes are voluntary. Therefore, if you did not want to pay for defense, you wouldn't have to. You would be freeloading off the other citizens, but you would be free to that if you decided you did not want to pay. Once a tax is voluntary, and compulsion and coercion are removed, all citizens may rationally judge for themselves what taxes they should pay, and what they taxes they will pay. Individuals in a free society are good enough to make that decision.
And what would they decide? And what would I decide? I would decide to pay to keep my country safe from foreign invaders. How much? Maybe 20%, it depends on how strong I decide we need to be. The military budget would be a summation of that judgment made by all the citizens acting in their own individual rational self-interest. I am sure that it would be huge, especially in view of the madness that has spread through the base and primitive theocracies of the Middle East.
Don't be afraid W'sG! Don't be a social engineer, it's a debauched and disgusting avocation. And a much worse vocation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
