Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Found this article today by Walter Williams. Had not read it before, but is exactly my point of view. I could not explain my stance any better here than Dr. Williams does. Therefore I submit his article in lieu of any further discussion on my part. Agree or disagree as you will:

Spending and Morality - Walter E. Williams - Page full

The only problem with that point of view is it's based on a time when there were 13 colonies and a couple hundred thousand folks (if that many) and our problems were few and easily solved. Things are very different now and the solutions aren't simple anymore. Maybe some would prefer to live in a world where if you were down on your luck you were out on the street with your family and you could starve to death which is what happened years ago unless you had someone to take you in. Maybe some would prefer those needing help beg on the corner or humiliate themselves to get a few morsels of food.

In the end societies are judged on how they deal with those less fortunate. It seems a segment of our society thinks the old fire and brimstone reasoning should be the law of the land.

it's also funny how we keep seeing this notion of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots is some terrible thing that deserves the perpetrators needing to be flogged. It's really sad how the same folks seem to be deaf and blind when it's reversed and the resources are taken from the have-nots and given to the haves especially the very wealthy haves. Of course in that case it's not redistribution of wealth at all it's simply good business.

Originally Posted by honedright

Found this article today by Walter Williams. Had not read it before, but is exactly my point of view. I could not explain my stance any better here than Dr. Williams does. Therefore I submit his article in lieu of any further discussion on my part. Agree or disagree as you will:

Spending and Morality - Walter E. Williams - Page full

An interesting read but a little absurd. Most of your commentary has been based on the potential belief that collecting taxes (or a portion or as yet to be determined amount) is stealing which is an illegal act. This articles discusses the morality of what is essentially one person or a group forcing (without legal standing) another individual or group to hand over their money (stealing). The ultimate use of those funds is not what determines the legality of the act.

Morality is a subjective concept but legality is objective. Laws are conceived with a moral component but once implemented allow no adjustments based on any specific individual's moral beliefs. Laws can be changed however to suit a new morality agreed upon by the majority. I believe you already understand that process.

If I have represented your potential belief with respect to tax collection correctly you then have to support the position that tax collection an illegal activity. This has yet to be proven by any of your previous comments.

With respect to the moral component of this current discussion let me ask. If people in need were not assisted with the combined resources collected from everyone what would be their fate? If that fate was something you would not want for yourself or your family would it be "morally" correct to allow it to happen to someone else anyway? How would you justify that decision?

Originally Posted by Brenngun

An interesting read but a little absurd. Most of your commentary has been based on the potential belief that collecting taxes (or a portion or as yet to be determined amount) is stealing which is an illegal act. This articles discusses the morality of what is essentially one person or a group forcing (without legal standing) another individual or group to hand over their money (stealing). The ultimate use of those funds is not what determines the legality of the act.

Morality is a subjective concept but legality is objective. Laws are conceived with a moral component but once implemented allow no adjustments based on any specific individual's moral beliefs. Laws can be changed however to suit a new morality agreed upon by the majority. I believe you already understand that process.

If I have represented your potential belief with respect to tax collection correctly you then have to support the position that tax collection an illegal activity. This has yet to be proven by any of your previous comments.

With respect to the moral component of this current discussion let me ask. If people in need were not assisted with the combined resources collected from everyone what would be their fate? If that fate was something you would not want for yourself or your family would it be "morally" correct to allow it to happen to someone else anyway? How would you justify that decision?

I'm stepping back in only (well maybe not) to comment that you have completely misrepresented my argument. I thought I was fairly, if not completely, clear. I never said that tax collection is an illegal activity. In fact I corrected myself in terms of clarifying the difference between legitimacy/ legality and morality. Yes, a tax may be legal, but is it ultimately moral? I think I've made the point clear with the definition of theft and it's relation to the practice of redistribution. Also, the article I submitted by Williams further clarifies, as well as mirrors, my view quite well. Yes, morality is subjective and may change per your perspective. As this thread has demonstrated, any view point can be rationalized. But certain acts, such as theft (legitimized or not - how's that for rationalization), have stood the test of time regarding the issue of morality. You may have a different view point, but you may find yourself on the wrong side of history. Also, at no time have I even remotely suggested, as your straw man attempts to, that "people in need" should not be assisted. But to assist one by harming another is a zero sum game where everyone loses. The poor are not poor for lack of money, but for lack of ability to create and maintain wealth. Throwing money at them does nothing to solve the root cause of their poverty. Taking wealth from those who generate it, without compensation in turn, is a crime. So if need is the only justification to change the terms of morality to allow any means necessary to meet the needs (a la - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities"), you've opened the door for an arbitrary, anything goes society that can basically do anything it wants anytime it wants. It's only a matter of time until "what goes around, comes around."

Now I'm done with this thread.

I still don't understand why those who object to specific taxation on pretext that it is theft do not explicitly apply the exact same argument to any and all taxation.

If it's immoral to take somebody's money to feed a hungry child, it ought to be equally immoral to take it in order to pay a soldier, as taking is taking no matter what you use the money for.

Originally Posted by gugi

I still don't understand why those who object to specific taxation on pretext that it is theft do not explicitly apply the exact same argument to any and all taxation.

If it's immoral to take somebody's money to feed a hungry child, it ought to be equally immoral to take it in order to pay a soldier, as taking is taking no matter what you use the money for.

I guess what you don't understand is that one is taking in order to feed someone's child, the other is giving in order that the soldier will defend you. Seems pretty clear to me. Why not voluntary giving via charity to feed the child? You don't see the difference? In fact you could take on multiple jobs in order to give away as much of your income as you want to feed as many children as you can afford. Maybe you are already doing that. In fact, if all of you who favor redistribution did the same, maybe there would be less need. Based on the outcry for the poor and defenseless here on this forumn, I'd be suprised if most of you aren't already doing the same.

So, it's not the taking that makes the difference but the spending part.
You can apply the same logic to your defense - if you value the protection, pay into it as much as it's worth to you, take more jobs etc... There have always been mercenaries for hire.
Why pull out your gun and force just the whiskey farmers to pay for such things?

Here is what taxation that pays for your protection sounds like according to your moral argument - "It's a nice life you've got yourself here, would be such a shame should something bad happen to it..."

Originally Posted by gugi

So, it's not the taking that makes the difference but the spending part.
You can apply the same logic to your defense - if you value the protection, pay into it as much as it's worth to you, take more jobs etc... There have always been mercenaries for hire.
Why pull out your gun and force just the whiskey farmers to pay for such things?

Here is what taxation that pays for your protection sounds like according to your moral argument - "It's a nice life you've got yourself here, would be such a shame should something bad happen to it..."

I refer you back to Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution.

Ok, now I'm done.

So, we gave up on the moral argument (it's wrong regardless of whether a law says it's ok), and are referring to the legal argument (the law, in this case the constitution, says it's ok so it is ok).

I guess this wasn't the time for me to understand the immorality or anti-constitutionality.

Well, not really. I'm trying hard, and want to help. So I thought of one more thing I'd like to explain, but don't want to go into to much detail or make another long post.

Gugi, you keep bringing up spending, as opposed to taking, or giving. At one point you argued that not everyone wants to "give" to the cause, as it were, ie - defense, police, fire, roads, etc. and pay taxes for those services.

There are a couple of terms that came to mind - "Express consent" and "Implied consent." In the emergency responder and medical profession it is understood that no one recieves treatment without express consent. In other words, you can refuse treatment, even lifesaving treatment. But should that person become unconscious, and unable to give consent, or refuse treatment, it is understood by lifesavers, and law, that no one of sound mind, unless previously arranged per ie - DNR, would wish harm upon themselves, or want to die, therefore consent to treat is implied and given.

I believe the same would hold true for those who claim they don't want the government to defend them, and therefore don't want to pay taxes for same. Would they feel the same when faced by enemy professional armed forces? Even though those same refusers were trained former soldiers? Maybe. Kudos for their bravado. But even off duty police officers know better than to handle a threat on their own while off duty, away from their radio and backup.

So even though there may be those who say they don't want the help offered to them, and authorized by the Constitution, when faced by insurmoutable odds, when push comes to shove, I doubt they'd turn away the help. And by that same token, I think therefore that is the reason they should, and people do, pay those taxes for services authorized by the Constitution.

Back to taking, giving, and spending. Those are all very different things. Obviously, though, if you were to give for one thing and your money were misappropriated and spent on something different from what you had agreed on, that would also be wrong. So yes, in that sense, it is also the spending.