My Beef with "Social Responsibility"

Post Reply New Topic

Well if you had not ignored all the responses in which I did my best to explain my meaning, that you failed to get in the first place...maybe you'd get what's going on here.

I never said you would work for or in the government, nor do I even think that...hence the reason why that quote of mine is a question, if you look at the post by the poster Burzum that it is a response to maybe it will make more sense.

yeah yeah, in your opinion...I still don't think taxation is stealing or that having the opinion that it's not in any way indicates I think people don't 'deserve' their private property.

You had stated: "you don't deserve your hard-earned private property because the collective doesn't like you" in the context of a debate about taxation.

Now maybe I'm just really stupid, or maybe you're just really awful at using the language, but you still have to admit that it certainly looks like you're saying the legitimacy of the taxation rests on whether the collective likes you or not. Remarks about deserving property, in the context of a debate about taxation, certainly do seem to be referring to the authority/legitimacy to tax.

I mean what else are you talking about, in this context? "Deserve your hard-earned property" isn't about taxation? If it is, then you're just wriggling, because it can be translated as "Taxes, because the collective doesn't like you". Unless it refers to something else, you can't wriggle out of it. So ... did it refer to something other than taxation? You haven't been able to mention any alternative so far. Until you can ... you're just wriggling.



Yes, its another fantasy jump here. That had nothing to do with being taxed. It had to do with who should determine spending.



Yes, it is. You don't seem to comprehend the difference between being taxed, and being in charge of public spending. Holding the public purse-strings has nothing to do with being taxed. It has to do with who should allocate public funds, not how or whether they should be collected.



It's plain as day:

its the governments money to use for the public. If you were the kid constantly screaming 'mine' and never sharing then I imagine the other kids didn't find you very friendly or pleasant to be around, would we want the tax money in the hand of such a child?

The child is an analogy for Ruveyn (I don't think it's meant to suggest he's immature, more just to simplify the explanation down to basic sandbox ethics). Here, what's being talked about is NOT taxation - it's about use of public funds, and whether the particular child (ie Ruveyn, or someone with Ruveyn's philosophy) should be the one to have the tax money "to use for the public".

The point being made wasn't about people being taxed because they're not liked or whatever tangent you were going off on, it was about the notion that someone who puts self-interest above all else shouldn't be trusted with public spending - because naturally, they should try to get it all in their own pocket, if they believe self-interest is the highest good.

Look. The last thing I want to do is to lay hands on what is NOT mine. Got it? You could not get me into a position for regulating tax revenues (which is stolen money) except by threatening me with physical harm if I didn't. I detest what the government does to me and I would not want to do the same to anyone else.

The only reason I am willing to pay some taxes is because the government has monopolize police, fire and other protective services. The only way to get these services is to knuckle under.

Why is my position so hard to comprehend?

What is mine is mine. What is yours is yours and What is his is his. Can anything be simpler?

ruveyn

It's not difficult to comprehend at all - it's stage 1 or 2 on the Kohlberg moral development scale. Very simple indeed.

The beginning of Justice is knowing what is yours and what is not yours.

The destruction of Justice is ignoring that distinction.

ruveyn

ruveyn -- Once again I must make the legal point that taxes are not a crime. They are in fact laws which dictate the collection of whatever under the authority of the sovereign. One may disagree with tax laws and besmirch them, but they are not crimes.

I am telling you what I meant was...the child on the playground that never shares and makes a point to always point out 'mine...not yours' we would not want someone like that in charge of public spending. That hardly indicates I think Ruven wants to be in charge of taxes, it was more I'm glad he's not.

why you randomly jumped into a conversation just to attempt to rip apart my posts based on things I never typed or indicated...I don't know, maybe you should read back to the beginning of the discussion and pay attention to what's going on.

I regard government employment and service in the same light I regard consorting with thugs and criminals. I loath and detest government, even though it is a lesser evil than rampant anarchy. Only a threat of death or physical abuse could get me to do anything for or with the government. So you need not worry about me. I have no desire whatsoever to rule over or govern my fellow humans. I think wanting to exert authority beyond the custodial authority one has over one's children as sick and evil.

ruveyn

Isn't it called sociopathy?

Of course taxes are not 'crimes'.

If the government dictates that I can go around and kill anyone I want, does that make it more morally acceptable? No!

When it comes to 'fairness', that is a subjective thing. It is not quantifiable, and therefore, one's opinion of what is 'fair' can not even be remotely assumed to be a fact.

So if region is going to have taxes, fairness should have nothing to do with it. Only facts and sound economic reasoning matter.

And you're going pontificate that ruveyn's (and your) own brand of opinionated nonsense is somehow "objective". Give me a f*****g break.

You mean our "opinionated nonsense" that facts matter more than unquantifiable data?

I did read your responses - the explanation was lost on me because of the original miscommunication.

I like you Sweetleaf, so sorry for acting like a dickface. But asking whether someone like ruveyn (whose ideology is staunchly against taxation) would be fit for public office doesn't make much sense.

Legalized theft. Therefore not a crime. Our government commits its outrages under the cover of legality.

ruveyn