Two Million Australians live Below the Poverty Line (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

Volition, taxation is not stealing - it is not regarded as stealing because the general consensus in society precludes taxation from the definition of stealing. I'm gonna quote what I said in the other thread:

I am not a follower of so called 'democratic morality', but rather of consequentialism, in the broad sense of the phrase which permits the existence of general 'moral rules' to the extent that they optimise consequences, and permit punishments for the contravention of the general moral rules to the extent that they undermine the efficacy of moral rules in optimising the consequences. I don't see merit in 'consistency' per se (but obviously a 'consistent' rule tends to be more credible). However, strict adherence to 'consistency' is often problematic. Much would depend on how stealing is defined, on how murder is defined etc. Would the use of facilities that you didn't pay for constitute stealing? What about abortion - is that murder? We are creatures that rely on intuition and common sense, rather than strict logic, in normal applications of morality. Notions such as 'property rights', 'stealing', 'murder' etc. cannot be considered literally because the strict literal meanings came after their intrinsic applications. The discourse exists through convenience - the dictionary meanings, categories and distinctions attempt to describe what we regard as morally wrong, not define what is morally wrong.

You mentioned later that examining the definition is unnecessary. But of course it's necessary to examine what is stealing if we're determining the veracity of your argument that (paraphrasing) "taxation is stealing, therefore it's wrong". Prima facie the problematic part of the argument is not that stealing is wrong, but rather that taxation is regarded as stealing. That is the main issue in our present discussion.

 

[volition]

Volition, taxation is not stealing - it is not regarded as stealing because the general consensus in society precludes taxation from the definition of stealing. I'm gonna quote what I said in the other thread:

The fact that people begrudgingly hand their money up to the government does not change it. In most cases, they don't even get to see their money! (the magic of PAYG)

Let's say you are approached by some massive 150kg guy who could bash you and he says "gimme your money or i'll bash ya". You hand your money over because of this threat of violence. It was still theft wasn't it?

You mentioned later that examining the definition is unnecessary. But of course it's necessary to examine what is stealing if we're determining the veracity of your argument that (paraphrasing) "taxation is stealing, therefore it's wrong". Prima facie the problematic part of the argument is not that stealing is wrong, but rather that taxation is regarded as stealing. That is the main issue in our present discussion.

Define what is stealing? I thought this would be pretty obvious, they take your money and contribute it towards causes you don't support and would not have paid money towards if you had had the actual choice (eg. the Iraq War).

If you are seriously trying to argue that everybody in Australia is in perfect agreement with what the government is spending their money on, then maybe its not theft. But there's no way this is true.

It's only not stealing when there's a tickable box on your tax return that says "Do you wish to pay tax for this?".

Every contract should be voluntary, and implicit contracts such as "you live next door, therefore shine my shoes or move out" are obviously not allowed.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

My hypothesis: volition wasn't parented properly. Most people learn to share and to create an equal and fair society. Because our friend volition was raised in Bondi with rich parents, he wants everything to himself. You know that kid at birthday parties who never brought a present, who sat under the tree by himself and who ate all the food and couldn't share? Yeah, that's him.

 

[Silver Persian]

I probably wouldn't support the privatisation of welfare to charity - I just feel that if its going to be outsourced to a whole bunch of smaller institutions the safety net would end up having many holes. I might support (although I haven't thought much about this) allowing people to tick a box on their tax return to "opt out" of the social security system - meaning that you can choose to not pay the taxes that go towards it, but then you also don't receive any benefits. I think (and I could be very wrong) that most people would choose to contribute - if not on the basis of social justice, then self-preservation.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

My hypothesis: volition wasn't parented properly. Most people learn to share and to create an equal and fair society. Because our friend volition was raised in Bondi with rich parents, he wants everything to himself. You know that kid at birthday parties who never brought a present, who sat under the tree by himself and who ate all the food and couldn't share? Yeah, that's him.

lol ad homs

Well I think the underlying ideas behind socialism can work really well on a family level (parents provide for children) or a small community level (families help each other out), because it's voluntary, but when you try to enforce it across a whole nation it becomes wasteful.

Working class background before you start flaming, btw.

 

[withoutaface]

My hypothesis: volition wasn't parented properly. Most people learn to share and to create an equal and fair society. Because our friend volition was raised in Bondi with rich parents, he wants everything to himself. You know that kid at birthday parties who never brought a present, who sat under the tree by himself and who ate all the food and couldn't share? Yeah, that's him.

Even if I would've given x% of my income to charity anyway, I'm still going to feel pissed off that I'm forced to under threat of violence against my person.

 

[jb_nc]

god damn i did some good trolling pg 1 and 2

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

lol ad homs

lol you expect me to take what he wrote seriously lol?

it's so fucking ludicrous lol.

Fact remains that people like waf, malfoy, volition and so on are all greedy people at heart who live in Mosman and who need to be sat down on a stool and beaten until their fat, fat, fat pockets full of cash are stripped down to a level that allows us plebs of Campbelltown to live a life that's borderline acceptable. I'm live in squallor here guys! People who've learned to shaaare give their money to the poor, and the people that don't have failed in what Dr. Stephie would call "human development." They failed to get past Erikson's basic trust stage, or summat like that anyway. Only cruddy people believe otherwise, and those people suck ass.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

lol you expect me to take what he wrote seriously lol?

it's so fucking ludicrous lol.

Fact remains that people like waf, malfoy, volition and so on are all greedy people at heart who live in Mosman and who need to be sat down on a stool and beaten until their fat, fat, fat pockets full of cash are stripped down to a level that allows us plebs of Campbelltown to live a life that's borderline acceptable. I'm live in squallor here guys! People who've learned to shaaare give their money to the poor, and the people that don't have failed in what Dr. Stephie would call "human development." They failed to get past Erikson's basic trust stage, or summat like that anyway. Only cruddy people believe otherwise, and those people suck ass.

You still haven't accounted for the fact that I think all the same stuff as them

EDIT: You're totally in Piaget's pre-operational stage of thinking right there, if you want to go that way.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

EDIT: You're totally in Piaget's pre-operational stage of thinking right there, if you want to go that way.

Piaget was a hack.

Like I said before, politics (particularly idealism) is more to do with morality

Nothing very moral about denying people THE RIGHT TO LIFE! Because that's what you're doing if you don't help these two million people who live below the poverty line - you're murdering! Murderer!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I just think that any person with some kind of moral would agree that the consequences of not taxing people would be far worse than if we overtaxed rich scum like volition and so on. Consider the scenarios and then tell me you agree with me!

 

[volition]

Nothing very moral about denying people THE RIGHT TO LIFE! Because that's what you're doing if you don't help these two million people who live below the poverty line - you're murdering! Murderer!

Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to do something via the government. It just means you help them privately.

Anyway, as I'm always saying: You don't protect one right by removing another from somebody else. That doesn't make sense.

I just think that any person with some kind of moral would agree that the consequences of not taxing people would be far worse than if we overtaxed rich scum like volition and so on. Consider the scenarios and then tell me you agree with me!

My hypothesis: volition wasn't parented properly. Most people learn to share and to create an equal and fair society. Because our friend volition was raised in Bondi with rich parents, he wants everything to himself. You know that kid at birthday parties who never brought a present, who sat under the tree by himself and who ate all the food and couldn't share? Yeah, that's him.

How arrogant can you get? You're making assumptions based on where I live, and then proceeding to make ad hom arguments against me because of it!

Originally, I wasn't gonna reveal this stuff about myself, but if you really really want to know: My parents are both nurses, so no, I'm not exactly what you would call "rich". My parents have just worked really hard, we came to Australia when I was about 2, with almost no family support and hardly any friends in Australia when we came here. My family don't even have a car at the moment! Oh and btw, its not like we always lived in Bondi. First off, we lived with other people further out west, then Tempe, Summer Hill, Ashfield, Coogee, Waverley and NOW Bondi(in an apartment I might add, nothing too glamorous like the mansion you might have pictured me living in).

Anyway, let's not turn this into a "I'm poorer than you, and therefore better than you" slagging match. Being poor does not make you more correct. Let the arguments speak for themselves.

I'd like to add that my beliefs are what I would believe no matter how rich/poor I am. I would still believe that taxation is theft, that govts are bad, and that free markets are good. So I am going to continue defending free markets, you are free to throw whatever reasoned and logical objections about the market at me and I will do my best to answer them.

I'm trying to keep things based on reason and evidence, if you can reason it out to me that the market is bad, then I'm happy to change my views. In return, I ask that you be prepared to change your views if I am able to logically show you that the market is beneficial to us. If you aren't prepared to even consider changing your views, then I'm wasting my time on you, so you might as well let me know now.

_dhj_: I await your response on the taxation as theft thing

 

[_dhj_]

Hi volition. You've not countered my last posts, so I don't feel the need to directly defend them. To clarify the decisive reason - 'stealing' is a word that categorises a number of actions that those in power (historically the monarch) and the community, regard as morally wrong. Any definition conferred to stealing is not overarching, but rather arise through convenience. Exceptions to such convenient definitions, for actions not regarded by the system and the community as morally wrong, are conferred by statutory sections. One has to bear in mind that without the state to enforce the rules, they will disintegrate. When the enforcement of moral rules disintegrate, the moral rules themselves dissolve. Therefore the interests of the state in defining the rules are pertinent. Put it another (albeit simplified) way - if the state did not exist, 'stealing' would not exist. But the existence of the state requires taxation. Therefore taxation cannot be stealing.

On another note, when we're talking about stealing and murder etc. we're talking about legality and morality. Because taxation is legal, the main concern is morality. Income and wealth redistribution is morally correct because it alleviates an overarching injustice, which operates both on philosophical and a common sense levels. That injustice is the disparity in luck. There is a tendency that those who've ended up with better outcomes have been luckier than those who've ended up with worse outcomes. On a philosophical level, the combined operation of determinism and indeterminism suggests that life is ultimately all down to luck. But even on a common sense level the input of luck is obvious. Some of us are born with 'better' genes than others - aesthetically, intellectually, emotionally or physically - not because they 'deserve' it but because they are lucky. Some are born in the right countries and suburbs, into wealthier families or met the right people - again only because they are lucky. The fact that reward for one's effort is based on another's perception of the outcome that resulted from the effort, and not on one's actual effort is another example. All these factors add up, and are in fact vastly under-compensated by income and wealth redistribution. Society's acceptance of the principle of wealth redistribution at least indicates a general recognition of the existence of disparity in luck.

 

[volition]

You've not countered my last posts, so I don't feel the need to directly defend them.

Well as far as I'm aware, I did respond to you. You wrote this line:

Volition, taxation is not stealing - it is not regarded as stealing because the general consensus in society precludes taxation from the definition of stealing.

And my response was: the fact that people end up giving their money to the govt doesn't change whether or not its theft. I think for clarity I'll also add that: the fact that people don't commonly consider it to be theft, doesn't change that it is theft.

To put it simply: If I don't have the right to withhold my money from the govt, that is theft.

Tell me why you think this ^^ line is wrong. Put it in a nice easy sentence for me, instead of diving into consequentialism and the rank subjectivity of 'optimising consequences'. I think I'm being as objective as possible about this, you earn money, you OWN that money. If somebody deprives you of the exclusive right to do with that money as you please, how is that not theft?

Income and wealth redistribution is morally correct because it alleviates an overarching injustice, which operates both on philosophical and a common sense levels. That injustice is the disparity in luck.

Society's acceptance of the principle of wealth redistribution at least indicates a general recognition of the existence of disparity in luck.

So effectively what you're saying is that people are different. I don't see anything novel about that. There's no way this disparity in luck could ever be completely closed! But eventually the closer and closer you bring people (even if we were to go communist style), the fact that Earth's land is not homogenous and the fact that we're born different would be insurmountable obstacles to creating an 'equality' of luck.

And if we weren't trying to close the gap completely... then to what extent are you trying to close the gap? "To the best of ones ability?" Here we hit subjectivity again!

So yes, I agree with you in that there exists a disparity of luck, but I don't agree with you when you say that

Income and wealth redistribution is morally correct

if you mean wealth redistribution should happen via violence or the threat of violence. Just a question, are you arguing for 'positive rights'?

Will you at least agree with me when I say that if you don't pay your taxes, the govt will commit violence against you?

 

[_dhj_]

If I don't have the right to withhold my money from the govt, that is theft.

I explained to you why that is wrong in the last couple of posts and I don't think I need to repeat myself if you insist on repeating that sentence and taking it as fact without justifying it. I mentioned a framework based on consequences only because you mentioned that your moral framework is based on consistency. But consistency should merely be a means to an end, not the end in itself. Consequences have a framework to be based on, to be measured against - and that framework is the eventual happiness or utility of the greatest number of people. I don't see what consistency should naturally be measured against - should it be measured against the definitions you subscribe to? Or should it be against measured against what the community or society subscribe to? Or perhaps it should be measured against natural human behaviour (since human beings are naturally inconsistent or hypocritical if we are measured against literal definitions).

Will you at least agree with me when I say that if you don't pay your taxes, the govt will commit violence against you?

When you don't pay your taxes you are committing a wrong within the community and the state's definition or morality (hence the moral outrage towards tax evasion). That wrong is punished, though not as severely as worse moral wrongs such as murder or rape. The state is justified in punishing you.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Anyway, as I'm always saying: You don't protect one right by removing another from somebody else. That doesn't make sense.

right to decent life is more valued than the right to a life of excess. Take it back to your mansion rich boy.

 

[volition]

Ok _dhj_ thanks for editing that earlier post for me I think I know what sort of response you're looking for now:

I'm gonna go through "Universally Preferred Behaviour".

If you want the more detailed version of what I'm summarising here, see this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html

There are a set of universally preferred behaviours, that logically must exist, because in arguing that "universally preferred behaviour doesn't exist" you would be expressing a preference for truth over falsehood.

1. The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
2. Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
3. Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

This is the basis for a set of moral rules that must exist. Once we've established that, we have to examine any set of moral rules using consistency and universality. If a moral theory is based on self-contradictory principles or fails the test of universality it is obviously invalid.

Since scientific theories require logical consistency, a moral theory cannot be valid if it is both true and false at the same time. A moral theory which approves of stealing, for instance, faces an insurmountable logical problem. No moral theory should, if it is universally applied, directly eliminate behaviour it defines as moral while simultaneously creating behaviour it defines as immoral.

Ok, now for my more specific responses to what you've written:
In general I would have to say your view of morality is too state-centric. I don't believe we need the state to give us morality.

'stealing' is a word that categorises a number of actions that those in power (historically the monarch) and the community, regard as morally wrong.

I think one obvious flaw here is that those in power change all the time, which means morality changes every 3 years. Do you really believe this?

Perhaps more importantly, I think this fails the test of universality. It can't be right for some to be able to define what morality/stealing is, and others not to be able to define it. What must be good for one, must be good for all. So this can't be right.

Any definition conferred to stealing is not overarching, but rather arise through convenience.

But we're dealing with an objective set of moral truths, so I think I'm gonna have to go with 'overarching'(as a set of morals that are always objectively true) rather than 'convenience'(subjective).

When the enforcement of moral rules disintegrate, the moral rules themselves dissolve.

I've mentioned this before, the fact that following a moral code is optional confuses people into thinking that moral rules are themselves subjective. When I say optional, I mean this as in, you won't get struck down by a bolt of lightning for not obeying them. I believe moral rules are objective, which is why they exist regardless of enforcement.

Just an observation to counter your theory, under your rules, slavery is morally allowed wherever the government doesn’t care. But clearly slavery is always wrong yeah? The right to your own body exists outside of govt enforcement of private property.

Therefore the interests of the state in defining the rules are pertinent.

Well.... I disagree because morals are not dependent on the state at all. They are perfectly capable of existing without the state, therefore the interests of the state do not affect morality.

Put it another (albeit simplified) way - if the state did not exist, 'stealing' would not exist. But the existence of the state requires taxation. Therefore taxation cannot be stealing.

There is no such thing as "the government" as far as a moral agent is concerned, it has no ethical rights and it never does anything - only the people within it act. "The govt" is a concept, and moral rules apply to people, not concepts.

It's not right that some people (those ppl within the govt - I guess particularly the ATO) are able to take money, but we aren't able to. Therefore the only workable solution is that nobody is able to take money unless its voluntary.

 

[_dhj_]

I suspect that our main disagreement is on the source of morality. Your arguments turn on the idea that general definitions of moral wrongs informs what is morally wrong. My contention is that the morality of acts depends on the judgment of individual in the particular situation, or on what individuals in the particular situations have, in the past, regarded as moral behaviour. That it is the human experience of particular situations that inform the general definitions, and indeed inform the exceptions to the definitions. The question is whether morality of acts depend on universal rules, or on the particular contexts and circumstances of the acts.

Regarding objectivity/subjectivity: If morality is 'objective', where does it come from? I understand the observation that just because morality is optional, it is sometimes seen as subjective. But that does not solve the issue either way. There seems to be two possible justifications for an objective morality: 1) if moral rules are derived from a divine source (but then the question turns on whether god exists). 2) if the moral rules achieve a desirable outcome - this I would accept - but then it is the outcome that is objective, not the moral rules themselves.

Regarding 'logical consistency': Morality does not turn on a set of commandments. It turns on the circumstances and context - actions must be judged on their merits. For example, if we look at 'murder'. As I have mentioned - is abortion murder? What about killing in self defense? What about soldiers in war - are they murderers or are they war heroes? What about euthanasia? What if your comrade was shot several times in the stomach by the enemy, and in pain, he pleads you to end his life? What if it was an animal - a dog - that is suffering from such pain and cannot communicate its consent to the ending of its life? The point is that morality turns on the context and circumstances. General rules such 'one should not kill' only describe the generally correct solution from a moral perspective - but it is a description, not a definition, and ultimately you have to judge individual actions by the context, circumstances and implications (or consequences) of the actions.

It seems to me that no analogy with science can be drawn, precisely because morality fall outside of the physical. It is not something that we solve logically - it does not turn on the intellect of the individual. What morality turns on is individual conscience. That is, whether the conscience of the individual who is about to do an act regards the act as morally correct or incorrect in the context and circumstances. If your conscience dictates that taxation is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong to you. I would suspect that the majority of the community does not regard taxation as morally wrong.

 

[volition]

Hi _dhj_, sorry for the late response, I've been a bit busy the past few days.

So to kick things off, I want to ask you :
1. Do you believe that if something was wrong in the past, it is also wrong now?
2. Do you believe that moral rules should apply equally to all people? (what is good for one is good for all)

My contention is that the morality of acts depends on the judgment of individual in the particular situation, or on what individuals in the particular situations have, in the past, regarded as moral behaviour.

But this allows for the morality of things to change, purely because people's opinion of it changes. And I'm not talking about where there are situations with differences(whether big or small) between them, I am referring to the exact same act changing in its moral status. If something is wrong today, it was always wrong. Can stealing be moral 3 seconds ago, but immoral now? This can present a rather odd situation when your sense of morality includes the state inside it. Are you still sure you want the state to form part of your morality?

Regarding objectivity/subjectivity: If morality is 'objective', where does it come from?

The existence of universally preferred behaviour is where we're getting it from. The rest is constructed/examined based on rules like "what must be good for one must be good for all".

It seems to me that no analogy with science can be drawn, precisely because morality falls outside of the physical.

The fact that moral rules exist outside of physical reality doesn't make them irrelevant. The scientific method also exists outside of physical reality, and yet we still use that.

The use of the scientific method is to make sure that it's all reasoned out and so on, what's wrong with subjecting moral theories to this kind of examination?

If your conscience dictates that taxation is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong to you. I would suspect that the majority of the community does not regard taxation as morally wrong.

Let's see what happens when we apply the rule that if it is good for some, then it must be good for all.

Let's say your conscience dictates that taxation is morally ok. Given this, you are basically saying that it is "OK for govt workers(ATO workers and police+courts) to forcefully take money from some people and redistribute it to others".

If this forceful taking of money really is morally acceptable, then it should be acceptable for ANYBODY to do it right? What is it that morally sets you apart from an ATO worker? Nothing! Do you see what I'm getting at now?

If the poor have a 'right' to rich peoples money, then they should be equally morally justified in literally taking it from the rich themselves! (I'm not saying they do have this right, just that this is an implication of what you're saying) So you should have no problem giving the poor people weapons so that they can go and threaten the rich people to hand over the money. But obviously we do have a problem with this.


You need to look at WHY certain people are given this right, and examine whether its consistent or not. Some of Stefan Molyneux's writing, which will help illuminate this point:

Certain people calling themselves "the state" claim the moral right to use force against other people – a moral right, they claim, that is based on elections. Very well – all we have to do is ask which moral principle justifies this rather startling right. The answer we will get is: when the majority of people choose a leader, then everyone has to submit to that leader. Excellent! Then we must ask if senators and congressmen ever defy their party leader. If they do, then aren’t they acting immorally? Their party has chosen a leader – don’t they then have to obey that person? If they don’t, then why do we? Also, if the principle is that the majority can impose the leader’s decisions on the minority, why is that only the case for the government? What about women, who outnumber men? What about employees, who outnumber managers? And last but not least, what about voters, who outnumber politicians? If the majority should forcibly impose its will on the minority, shouldn’t we all have the ability to throw politicians in jail if they don’t do what we want? What if atheists outnumber Christians in a certain town? Can they ban churches? Patients outnumber doctors, prisoners outnumber jailers – the list goes on and on. If the moral theory of "majority rule" is valid, then it must be valid for all situations.

Once you grasp this idea, I think you'll see why it is that its not purely a matter of "personal preference"/individual conscience like you seem to think it is. It has to also be universally applicable, or it just doesn't work!

 

[_dhj_]

I have made this clear already. I don't believe in so called moral 'rules' that apply regardless of the circumstances. Again, the moral conscience of the soldier who kills in combat is very different to that of a person who kills in a drive by shooting. The same principle applies in other situations. To indiscriminately apply a set of moral rules without regard to the circumstances that the individual in question finds herself is an uncalled for step for a few reasons. I emphasise that individuals are different - not just in their moral outlook, but also in their genetics and background.

For society to function, certain legal rules apply to all. But note that the application of legal rules is a piecemeal exercise - there are general rules and exceptions based on circumstances and status of the individual. You can't intentionally kill unless it is in self defence, in defence of others, or if you are a soldier in war. There are certain protections and afforded to classes of people - police officers, minors, lunatics, medical practitioners etc. These rules are derived from experience, common sense, community values and morality. I refer to legal rather than moral rules because you can't pull out an old book called 'morality'. You keep asserting the existence of so called 'universally preferred behaviour' backed up by fringe libertarian 'theorists', but experience has shown that they are not universal and they are not preferred.

Perhaps the manipulation of discourse and its imposition on others suited the interests of the bourgeoisie of the 18th or 19th century, but the use of words such as 'stealing' in unnatural way that you described cannot be accepted by society of today - a society that is so heavily based on interdependence. The very framework that was used to protect such bourgeois interests against monarchical intervention - that is the legalistic framework and 'rule of law' which keeps governments in check - does not recognise taxation as stealing.

Poor people taking money from the rich is not intrinsically wrong, but one possible way in which this can occur as you outlined - poor people threatening rich with weapons - has obvious problems. It creates an atmosphere of violence and of disorder - it increases discomfort in society. Here is a perfect example of why the act is wrong - it brings about negative consequences. When we take humans are they are - imperfect creatures with distinctive and irrational behaviours, the better solution is to have a taxation and welfare system. There is less violence, disorder or discomfort. The marginal utility of income is higher for the poor than for the rich - welfare therefore creates positive consequences.