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.
The OP has an issue with social programs and welfare. He analyzed the situation and concluded that using taxes to help the needy (the government is taking from one, giving to another) is both immoral and contradicts the constitution and the intention of America's founding fathers. Like you, he emphasizes the moral (and legal) aspects. He thinks US government overstepped its boundaries and "we the people" were left with organized robbery.
What do you think about that?
I think he's wrong.
It's not robbery because it's done through a democratic process. People run and they will either publicly support or oppose things like welfare. The people can then vote for whom they like, and in the end, we have a collection of people with varying views who will make those decisions for us.
Welfare is done through this process. The government already has the authority to tax. This is a given. They can also decide what to spend that money on and so long as it is not explicitly unconstitutional, the only actual limitation is if the people find the move favorable. And if it's not, come election cycle, the people who supported that will find themselves looking for a new job.
Granted, the system has been corrupted by money, but if people actually took a stance on that, this is how it would work.
I also don't care what the founding fathers thought. Don't get me wrong, I agree with them on a lot and respect their contribution to Western Civilization. But of all the things they believe, what would offend them most is that some things are justified only by saying 'the founding fathers..." They were not kings, gods, ruler; they were public servants. They want you to think for yourself.
On that, the founders would not have supported any war we've been in for the last 50 or so years. I don't disagree that the government oversteps it's bounds all the time. But I don't think welfare is a sign of authoritarianism so long as the system is transparent and regulated properly. There's room for improvement within the current system, no doubt, but the concept as a whole is not unconstitutional and it's certainly not robbery. Simply because you are against the decision does not mean it's robbery. My taxes went into allowing ISIS to take Iraq, but I don't consider the tax dollars spent on that to be stolen from me. That doesn't mean I can't argue the decision.
If you or the OP want to argue that welfare is unjust, fine, but I won't be able to take anyone who calls if theft too seriously.
It's not robbery because it's done through a democratic process.
You have four people.
Three of them are penniless an homeless.
One has a well paying job and a home.
they meet and the three vote for moving in to his home and living there, each taking 25% of his earnings, he votes no.
That simple scenario, from your statement quoted, you do not consider robbery. They followed a democratic process, the guy with the home and job was in the minority. Too bad for him eh?
I wish all those "originalists" would start screaming about the unconstitutionl standing army and air force now employed by this country. As far as I can see, under originalist interpretation only the Navy is allowed.
they meet and the three vote for moving in to his home and living there, each taking 25% of his earnings, he votes no.
That simple scenario, from your statement quoted, you do not consider robbery. They followed a democratic process, the guy with the home and job was in the minority. Too bad for him eh?
There are some flaws to this scenario....first off, the homeless are still Americans, therefore they too have a home to live on just like the home owner. Also, why would the home owner have a vote with people that didn't live in his home? As my father always said, we live in a democracy, but this house is a monarchy. My sister and I didn't get to vote on anything within the house, but we definitely get to vote on issues in this country now that we are both adults.
they meet and the three vote for moving in to his home and living there, each taking 25% of his earnings, he votes no.
That simple scenario, from your statement quoted, you do not consider robbery. They followed a democratic process, the guy with the home and job was in the minority. Too bad for him eh?
When, or why, would there ever be a process like that for 4 people?
That scenario doesn't work.
But even if I do take it seriously, a democratic process cannot target a specific person then move a portion of their wealth to another specific person. That's clearly absurd. Same with government saying someone has to live in your home. That's not ok.
Now, if we take your scenario dealing with individuals and turn the numbers into overall percentages of a larger population, would not have a problem with 25% of the population paying more in taxes to go into program to help the 75% get out of extreme poverty.
The hypothesis states was that robbery is not wrong if it follows a democratic process.
I was providing an example where it most certainly was de facto robbery.
if we agree that a scenario where three (or four) people follow a democratic process that results in robbery, then at what threshold of people does it cease to be robbery? And why would the numbers count? If two people of three vote to take the property and currency of the third, and it's a democratic purpose, then how is that different than 66% (or 75%) of the electorate voting to take the property and currency of 33% (or 25%) of the electorate?
Now you can say, but he didn't agree to it, but Americans don't agree either, or rather you implicitly agree by being born here, which of course you have no control over thus it's not by any rational measure a choice. Nor is any choice ever extended on reaching majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx
first off, the homeless are still Americans, therefore they too have a home to live on just like the home owner.
They would? Are homes being issued to the homeless? If they are then why are people still living on the streets when they have perfectly good homes to live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx
Also, why would the home owner have a vote with people that didn't live in his home?
Precisely, he would have to consent and consent to abide by the outcome of the vote. When were you last asked to consent to both the vote, and abiding by the outcome of that vote? You don't get to consent, because it's been determined that you are ruled by the democracy that is intended to provide you liberty (are we seeing an oxymoron in there yet?).
When, or why, would there ever be a process like that for 4 people?
That scenario doesn't work.
What if a democratic country has four citizens? What difference do numbers make? If numbers matter then at what threshold is a democracy considered to be a democracy, in numbers, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? Why does a process need to rely on a raw numbers count or it doesn't work? A process is a process, it shouldn't care if an input is 1, 10, 100, 1000, ...
Oh, it does work, it just illuminates an aspect you probably don't wish to address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
But even if I do take it seriously, a democratic process cannot target a specific person then move a portion of their wealth to another specific person. That's clearly absurd. Same with government saying someone has to live in your home. That's not ok.
Why? The government says that you only receive say 75% of your earnings, the rest goes to "others" does it really matter whether that 25% goes to one person of a million people? Why couldn't the government say that people could live in others houses if they're not resident (but own it) are not letting it, and have a certain threshold of income? What prevents it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Now, if we take your scenario dealing with individuals and turn the numbers into overall percentages of a larger population, would not have a problem with 25% of the population paying more in taxes to go into program to help the 75% get out of extreme poverty.
Why does total numbers matter? At the heart of it is that 25% are paying for 75%. If that's four people one person pays the other three, if that's four million people then that's 1 million people paying for the other 3 million, if that's four hundred million then that's 100 million paying for the other 300 million.
If you're needing to look at an action on a broad scale to find justification that you cannot find on a microscopic scale, perhaps it's because there is little justification to be found. What instead is you're determining that the benefit that is brought to the larger number is the greater good than the harm you are causing the smaller number.
What if a democratic country has four citizens? What difference do numbers make? If numbers matter then at what threshold is a democracy considered to be a democracy, in numbers, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? Why does a process need to rely on a raw numbers count or it doesn't work? A process is a process, it shouldn't care if an input is 1, 10, 100, 1000, ...
Oh, it does work, it just illuminates an aspect you probably don't wish to address.
No it really doesn't. The democratic process the US uses couldn't function under only 4 people. In your scenario, the 4 people are citizens; none hold elected office. This mean other have to exist in this scenario in order for the same rules that apply to the US to also apply to your scenario.
Now, if they use a different system than the US, the scenario can work, but it also becomes irrelevant. The US is a constitutional republic. This means a constitution exists to outline some basic guidelines on how government operates as well as uses representatives, chosen by the people, to run the government. So, unless you're 4 people are all representatives, they are not at all the same thing as the US. Therefore completely different rules apply.
The scenario suggests is a popular democracy. Popular democracy as a whole doesn't work well though, especially in this scenario where no specific state seems to be outlines. Without any government, I'll assume your scenario is some sort of anarchist democracy. Thus, regardless of the vote, the rich man is not actually obligated to follow through with the final decision. Unless there is a 5th person who can force the 4th person to do what the vote was. This is a political philosophy called Authoritarian Liberalism; it's the stuff Thomas Hobbes advocated for. Then again, this 5th person sounds more like a monarch, so this questions if your scenario even needs a vote.
I'll stop their. You scenario doesn't work, I'm sorry to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Why? The government says that you only receive say 75% of your earnings, the rest goes to "others" does it really matter whether that 25% goes to one person of a million people? Why couldn't the government say that people could live in others houses if they're not resident (but own it) are not letting it, and have a certain threshold of income? What prevents it?
Property rights prevent something like that from happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Why does total numbers matter? At the heart of it is that 25% are paying for 75%. If that's four people one person pays the other three, if that's four million people then that's 1 million people paying for the other 3 million, if that's four hundred million then that's 100 million paying for the other 300 million.
If you're needing to look at an action on a broad scale to find justification that you cannot find on a microscopic scale, perhaps it's because there is little justification to be found. What instead is you're determining that the benefit that is brought to the larger number is the greater good than the harm you are causing the smaller number.
The scale of a scenario simply starts poking holes in the scenario.
The premise I have is the same, which is that those who earn more can reasonably be asked to return more. No one should be asked to return an amount that is excessive or harmful to them.
Let me put it this way, I think a person sacrificing some luxuries so another can meet basic needs is not unreasonable. However, a person sacrificing some luxury so others can acquire luxuries is wrong. And of course, no one should be asked to sacrifice all luxury.
To return to your 4 person scenario, I now have to ask about income. If these are the only 4 people, and you refer to them as a state, I'll ask how the 4th is employed, as you said he is. He must be self employed, but without a buyer, he would make no actual money. So, presumably he's selling to another country. How big is that country? That may sound like a ridiculous question, but given the scenario, it's extremely relevant. What is this one man doing that is generating him profit?
Frankly, given the nature of this scenario, it makes far more sense for the rich man to just hire the 3 other men. This would increase the rich man's productivity and resolve the issue of poverty. So apparently, the scale matters a lot. The solution is far simpler with fewer people.
The hypothesis states was that robbery is not wrong if it follows a democratic process.
I was providing an example where it most certainly was de facto robbery.
if we agree that a scenario where three (or four) people follow a democratic process that results in robbery, then at what threshold of people does it cease to be robbery? And why would the numbers count? If two people of three vote to take the property and currency of the third, and it's a democratic purpose, then how is that different than 66% (or 75%) of the electorate voting to take the property and currency of 33% (or 25%) of the electorate?
Now you can say, but he didn't agree to it, but Americans don't agree either, or rather you implicitly agree by being born here, which of course you have no control over thus it's not by any rational measure a choice. Nor is any choice ever extended on reaching majority.
They would? Are homes being issued to the homeless? If they are then why are people still living on the streets when they have perfectly good homes to live in.
Precisely, he would have to consent and consent to abide by the outcome of the vote. When were you last asked to consent to both the vote, and abiding by the outcome of that vote? You don't get to consent, because it's been determined that you are ruled by the democracy that is intended to provide you liberty (are we seeing an oxymoron in there yet?).
So basically you think taxes is robbery? Guess you must not use anything that taxes pay for.
So no, taxes is not robbery, and last time I checked, the homeless were in fact Americans, therefore they live on the same land that those who own homes lives on. This isn't about providing everyone with a house. Though providing a space to live for homeless would greatly reduce homelessness, but that is another issue.
I was simply pointing out the flaws in your scenario which still stands. Another flaw is the fact that you provide your own liberty, it is the democracy that is meant to protect that.
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.
