Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Taxation Taxation

04-23-2008 , 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nietzreznor
David Gordon wrote a book explaining why Cohen's position is mistaken.

In any case, I don't really intend to press the issue here, as I don't really think it is all that relevant or important than the issue at hand. Even if we weren't sure whether we had a right to 100% of our income (or whatever it is we apparently don't own), or even if we were pretty sure that we didn't have this "absolute" right, I still don't see how it would change or falsify the argument. At the very least, we would need some further argumentation that somehow the the State did have the right to the income that individuals don't have a right to, and that the coercive and threatening methods they used were somehow legitimate. So, no, I don't really think that these "controversial" assumptions assume my conclusion; all the argument requires is the "controversial" premise that taxation is theft, which I would take to be more or less a conceptual truth about taxation.
So why do we start with the premise that taxation is "theft"? To steal something means that we have taken away something which is rightfully (according to law or, more debatable, morality) somebody else's, so for it to be conceptually true that taxation is theft one must have a right to their pre-tax income. Your pre-tax income is not legally yours...

And why would we need what you say we need at "the very least"?

As for Gordon, I've never heard of a prof who didn't agree with him assigning his works and he isn't even considered a decent theorist by those who don't agree with his ideas. As for Cohen, plenty who don't agree with him assign his works and consider him a great theorist. I'm not sure why I should read Gordon.

Last edited by moorobot; 04-23-2008 at 08:59 AM.
04-23-2008 , 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
I have two responses two this argument, along different but related lines:

1) I have a car in my garage. It is the result of previous transfers, for example, some guy makes the little knobs that go on the radio. The knob company transferred these to the radio company. The radio company transferred finished radios to the car company, the car company transferred the car to the dealer, the dealer transferred the car to me.

Do I have some sort of debt to the guy who made the knobs?

2) A plantation slave uses skills gained under his master's supervision. He uses (and benefits from) shelter and food provided by the master. Is he in debt to the master for these benevolent gifts?
I don't see what the relevance of #2 is. As for #1, your example ignores the key issue. For example, who transfered the raw material to the guy who makes the knobs? And who transfered that to that person? But wait...it isn't an infinite regress...for at some point what eventually is your knob is in nobody's possession...how did it go from being a part of the earth to being owned by human beings?

More importantly, I don't see how this is relevant either. Because I never said you had a duty to benefit the state (you are just framing this way to beg the question by assuming the state never benefits anyone else implicitly), and certainly did not in the passage you quoted which was:

Originally Posted by moorobot View Post
However, there are two other issues that I should mention.

1) Whether or not people's pre-tax income is morally theirs or something they are entitled to is extremely debatable; in fact whether we can sensibly say any income in a society with an income tax is actually pre-tax is extremely debatable, because one's "pre-tax" income is mostly a result of previous taxes and transfers (for example, your boss or your customers might be paying you with unemployment or corporate welfare money, or you might have used skills gained via public education to perform "your" work). For taxation to be theft (one entity taking assets that belong to another) under the libertarian definition pre-tax income must exist and it must have moral legitimacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
As a side note, you should probably worry less about how Joe Schmoe DOES NOT have a right to his "pretax income" and worry MORE about proving that the plunderers you advocate on behalf of DO have a right to it.
Why prove they have a "right" to it? I don't understand why this is necessary to avoid the theft claim; I don't have a right to the ice on Pluto, but I can still take it. In order for it to be morally wrong for you to take that ice, however, I would need to have a right to that ice. I want you to show why the government shouldn't take it since you are the one that thinks it is so bad if they do. My premise is that removing human suffering is bad; if the government taxing removes human suffering you could say "they had a right to do it" if you want but I think this is needlessly confusing.





Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
You order a computer from Dell. They mail it to you. I happen to be passing by when the UPS guy drops it off at your door. Since you're not home, I grab it. No force is involved. You never had it in the first place.

Is this "not analogous" to "theft"???
I did have it; I have a receipt and a law that stated I officially did. In your case, the case of pre-tax income you have a receipt and a law saying you do not own it.

Legally property rights I am fine with when they are used as tools to alleviate human suffering. It is assumed moral property rights I am against, because people invoke them to argue that acts which would alleviate suffering are wrong.

Last edited by moorobot; 04-23-2008 at 09:18 AM.
04-23-2008 , 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nietzreznor
Fine. I'm not going to repeat the stuff I've already argued with elliotr, but I don't think this is a strong argument against my oringinal argument as it stands since we would need some sort iof argument that taxation ought to be considered such an exception.

So while I agree that there may be instances of theft that are not always wrong (though I'm not sure I would ever think of them as "right"), taxation seems pretty clearly not to be one of them. Part of the reason I think your hypothetical example with the girl works is because a) the amount of money is small, b) the force applied isn't lethal or brutal (my stipulation), c) the girl will certainly die if we don't intervene (my stip.), d) the girl will 100% live if she gets the money (again my stip.), and e) we are only forcing one person.
As we change any of the variables (and taxation would change all of them except perhaps b), it becomes much less intuitive that such means are acceptable (I would say it becomes fairly intutive that they aren't okay).
So in some cases theft could be ok...at one point exactly does theft become wrong?

As an aside...What defines a "small" ammount of money? As for e) it doesn't seem clear this is important...because we could change "forcing one person to save one" to "forcing 1 million people to save 1 million". It all depends on how much good is gained by the force.
04-23-2008 , 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
So why do we start with the premise that taxation is "theft"? To steal something means that we have taken away something which is rightfully (according to law or, more debatable, morality) somebody else's, so for it to be conceptually true that taxation is theft one must have a right to their pre-tax income. Your pre-tax income is not legally yours...
We KNOW it's not "legally" yours. Nobody is disputing what the law is.

Why do we start with the premise that one does not have a right to his pre-tax income?
04-23-2008 , 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkholdem
And if 'the victim does not suffer horrible consequences it is not wrong? As I'm sure you are aware, everyone is different and reacts to things differently. There are different kinds of rape too, different settings, degrees of violence, ect which likely lead to different consequences, at least different degrees of consequences.

But since your a utilitarian, what about the pleasure the rapist derives from the act? What if that pleasure is extremely significant AND that person has never experienced pleasure before. Then he goes home to his family with a smile on his face and it brings his parents great joy to see their son happy for the first and only time in his life. Their happiness in turn is immense. Etc....

And what if the woman had a long term secret rape fantasy, so sure she was scard, but she was also very thrilled. And now she mastubates to the memory of the act, reliving that fantasy in her mind over and over and getting more and more pleasure..... then it must be right and not wrong I'd imagine, right?
The most your argument could possibly establish is that he should change his view to "an act is wrong if it is expected to have bad consequences" or "an act is wrong if it is likely to have bad consequences".

In any case, for the reasons I gave, an act being wrong because "it isn't consented to" is a much weaker moral view than consequentalism, because there are many of acts which aren't consented to which clearly aren't wrong.
04-23-2008 , 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
We KNOW it's not "legally" yours. Nobody is disputing what the law is.

Why do we start with the premise that one does not have a right to his pre-tax income?
Who said we did? I start with the premise that human suffering is bad.
04-23-2008 , 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
I don't see what the relevance of #2 is. As for #1, your example ignores the key issue. For example, who transfered the raw material to the guy who makes the knobs?
This doesn't matter, because I never assumed that guy OWNED the knobs. The value he adds is his LABOR, not the material.

So, do you want to take another crack at this? Or look for some other technicality to wiggle out from?

Quote:
More importantly, I don't see how this is relevant either. Because I never said you had a duty to benefit the state (you are just framing this way to beg the question by assuming the state never benefits anyone else implicitly), and certainly did not in the passage you quoted which was:
So if I don't have a "duty" to the state, on what basis are taxes taken? Please tell me you've got something more edifying than "because you are too weak to stop it."

Quote:
Why prove they have a "right" to it? I don't understand why this is necessary to avoid the theft claim; I don't have a right to the ice on Pluto, but I can still take it.
Nobody else is in possession of it.

Quote:
In order for it to be morally wrong for you to take that ice, however, I would need to have a right to that ice. I want you to show why the government shouldn't take it since you are the one that thinks it is so bad if they do. My premise is that removing human suffering is bad; if the government taxing removes human suffering you could say "they had a right to do it" if you want but I think this is needlessly confusing.
So you don't want to demonstrate any right. It feels good, that's enough for you.

OK. As long as everyone sees where you're coming from.

Quote:
I did have it; I have a receipt and a law that stated I officially did. In your case, the case of pre-tax income you have a receipt and a law saying you do not own it.
Oh. OK, when I take it, I leave you a little note saying I took it. And another little note saying that you don't own it.

Now we're good?

Quote:
Legally property rights I am fine with when they are used as tools to alleviate human suffering. It is assumed moral property rights I am against, because people invoke them to argue that acts which would alleviate suffering are wrong.
So basically, your only criteria is "does it fit my personal, vague, subjective standards"?

How do you determine if an action "alleviates human suffering", exactly? Please show me the formula you use.
04-23-2008 , 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by IsaacW
If everyone owns it then there are owners. A problem with this is that now I need to get permission from everyone in order to pick up the rocks and start making the blade.
Not true. We could agree to have a procedure (such as, say, democracy) for deciding another procedure (say, legal property rights) to determine who owns things. Maybe not the best solution ever, but better than trying to determine who owns things via "self-evident axioms".
04-23-2008 , 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
Who said we did? I start with the premise that human suffering is bad.
Then how did you determine that people do not have a right to pre-tax income?

BTW, I agree, human suffering is bad.
04-23-2008 , 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
Not true. We could agree to have a procedure (such as, say, democracy) for deciding another procedure (say, legal property rights) to determine who owns things. Maybe not the best solution ever, but better than trying to determine who owns things via "self-evident axioms".
I would have no problem with this.
04-23-2008 , 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
Then how did you determine that people do not have a right to pre-tax income?

BTW, I agree, human suffering is bad.
Because giving people a right to their pre-tax income would conflict, in some cases, with alleviating human suffering, which rules out that right.

Last edited by moorobot; 04-23-2008 at 09:47 AM.
04-23-2008 , 09:40 AM
Not true. We could agree to have a procedure (such as, say, democracy) for deciding another procedure (say, legal property rights) to determine who owns things. Maybe not the best solution ever, but better than trying to determine who owns things via "self-evident axioms".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
I would have no problem with this.
Good. As long as you then realize complete unanimity in the entire world is impossible, and in order to get anything done we need a decision rule, you are not an anarchist.

Last edited by moorobot; 04-23-2008 at 09:52 AM.
04-23-2008 , 09:42 AM
"So you don't want to demonstrate any right. It feels good, that's enough for you."

Nobody has demonstrated that rights exist at all, nevertheless certain ones exist. If you ever do, congratulations on your new status as greatest philosopher in the world.
04-23-2008 , 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
Because giving people a right to their pre-tax income would conflict, in some cases, with human suffering, which rules out that right.
Am i missing something big or is this phrase one of the most idiotic things ever written?
04-23-2008 , 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
This doesn't matter, because I never assumed that guy OWNED the knobs. The value he adds is his LABOR, not the material.

So, do you want to take another crack at this? Or look for some other technicality to wiggle out from?
Ok...if he doesn't own the knobs, why does it matter morally if he trades them to somebody? Let's say he took the knobs from a kid on the street. Then he aids value to them and trades them to you. Why do you own them and not the kid on the street? You HAVE to presuppose the guy owned them for the transfer to be "legitimate".



Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
So basically, your only criteria is "does it fit my personal, vague, subjective standards"?

How do you determine if an action "alleviates human suffering", exactly? Please show me the formula you use.
No formula is needed, and everybody agrees that one isn't. What formula do you have for deciding what food would satisfy you the most at the moment? What formula do you have for choosing what present to buy your daughter? What formula do you have for deciding whom the best girlfriend for you would be? Can you show me that formula so I can see whether you made the best choice? We are talking about what actions we should take here; and nobody uses a formula to decide what actions they should take.

There is no formula for determining what moral rights people have either or how to interpret them in specific cases or what procedure would best implement them, so don't think you are on any better grounds here.
04-23-2008 , 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goosty
Am i missing something big or is this phrase one of the most idiotic things ever written?
Actually, it was one of the most idiotic things ever written. See the edit it was a typo
04-23-2008 , 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
Because giving people a right to their pre-tax income would conflict, in some cases, with alleviating human suffering, which rules out that right.
My previous assumption still stands.
04-23-2008 , 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
Because giving people a right to their pre-tax income would conflict, in some cases, with alleviating human suffering, which rules out that right.
I don't need YOU to "give" that right to me, though.

And violating it increases suffering.
04-23-2008 , 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
As long as you then realize complete unanimity in the entire world is impossible, and in order to get anything done we need a decision rule
So far so good...

Quote:
you are not an anarchist.
I guess. If you want to define the word that way, whatever.

You and all the people who agree that democracy is a good procedure, go right ahead and use that. Have all the democracy you want.
04-23-2008 , 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
I don't need YOU to "give" that right to me, though.

And violating it increases suffering.
I gave an example earlier in which it wouldn't increase suffering, and you agreed.

The other claim is just a nit.
04-23-2008 , 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
"So you don't want to demonstrate any right. It feels good, that's enough for you."

Nobody has demonstrated that rights exist at all, nevertheless certain ones exist. If you ever do, congratulations on your new status as greatest philosopher in the world.
So how do you demonstrate that the right to pretax income is something that you can give or withhold (no pun intended)?
04-23-2008 , 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
I gave an example earlier in which it wouldn't increase suffering, and you agreed.

The other claim is just a nit.
It's worse than a nit, it's an unsupported assumption...
04-23-2008 , 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
So far so good...



I guess. If you want to define the word that way, whatever.

You and all the people who agree that democracy is a good procedure, go right ahead and use that. Have all the democracy you want.
And there are over 200 different decision making procedures in the over 200 different territories in the world. Have whichever one you want. Rarely does the market provide you with so many different options.
04-23-2008 , 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
So how do you demonstrate that the right to pretax income is something that you can give or withhold (no pun intended)?
You are equivocating between legal and moral rights here. Obviously legally you don't have the right to your pre-tax income currently.
04-23-2008 , 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorobot
Ok...if he doesn't own the knobs, why does it matter morally if he trades them to somebody? Let's say he took the knobs from a kid on the street. Then he aids value to them and trades them to you. Why do you own them and not the kid on the street? You HAVE to presuppose the guy owned them for the transfer to be "legitimate".
Why do I have to presuppose that? I hired a guy to repair my lawnmower. Is the transaction illegitimate because he didn't OWN my lawnmower?

BTW, I didn't withhold any taxes from the money I paid him.

Quote:
No formula is needed, and everybody agrees that one isn't. What formula do you have for deciding what food would satisfy you the most at the moment?
No forumla is needed here, because we're only talking about ONE person's preferences.

When you say "I'm going to move resources from person A's pile to person B's pile" you assume that person B will benefit. But you ignore the fact that person A will suffer.

If your goal is a net increase in utility, then you need some sort of method for determining if person A's utility increase is greater than person B's utility decrease.

Quote:
There is no formula for determining what moral rights people have either or how to interpret them in specific cases or what procedure would best implement them, so don't think you are on any better grounds here.
I agree. There is no formula. Which is utilitarianism is doomed. It's also why voluntary agreement is the only way to go.

      
m