unmanaged wrote:

....You might choose others, but here's my list:

1. A 30% national sales tax is a workable substitute for all income and payroll taxes in the United States.

2. Global warming is not primarily caused by human activity. In fact, global warming might not even exist.

3. Intelligent design is a viable scientific theory that ought to be taught in biology classes.

4. Even with marginal tax rates at current levels, reducing taxes will increase revenues.

5. Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

I would like to compile a similar list for liberals/Democrats.

I didn't like this list, its not particularly fair. I don't think "fairtaxer" is a suitable substitute for Conservatives (although the meme does seem to have infected quite a lot of people). Furthermore, not all Conservatives are religious, and number 5 is just cheap shot. And the offer at the end to compile a list for liberals rings very hollow coming from a liberal commentator. I mean, couldn't you have at least given it a shot before clicking "post" on this blog entry? How much mental effort would it have taken?

For Conservatives I'd suggest the following:

1. Judicial oversight prevents the police from investigating terrorism.

2. Waterboarding is no big deal. Its like a fraternity prank.

3. The impact of human activity on the environment is not important.

4. Unregulated markets will always select the most desirable social outcome.

5. No regulation of late-trimester abortions is possible due to Supreme Court decisions.

For Liberals I'd suggest the following:

1. There is no impending problem with social security and medicare.

2. The Constitution does not protect an individual right to own weapons.

3. If one opposes the decision to invade Iraq it naturally follows that one should support withdrawl from Iraq.

4. The best thing to do for the needy is usually to give them money or free services.

5. Taxation is not theft.

Anyone got any more? Wanna debate me on any of these?? :)

Here are two more good ones:

Conservatives:

6. The Constitution of the United States is rooted in "Judeochristian values."

Liberals:

6. Israel is one of the most oppressive, abusive states on the planet

I posted this with the intention of starting some more educated dialog... I'm a rebel rouser so to say...

Gov. Huckabee's advocacy of the FairTax is the single most important policy position in this election. Research findings explain why:

The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars – $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces [BHKPT].

The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan [THBP].

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case [THBNP].

The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be [ALM].

Consumption benefits [ALM]:

• Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.

• Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place.

• The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted.

• By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent.

Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system [KR].

Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively [JK].

Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax [THBPN].

Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20 [THPDB].

On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base [TBJ].

The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent [WM].

ALERT: Kotlikoff refutes Bruce Bartlett's shabby critiques of the FairTax.

Decius wrote:
4. Unregulated markets will always select the most desirable social outcome.

First, I'd want to clarify what you mean by "unregulated."

If by "regulation," you mean "creating and enforcing laws & rules under which the participants in a given industry must operate, in the interest of creating level playing fields and protecting investors/consumers from unfair business practices" (my humble definition), then I agree with your inclusion of Conservative Myth #4.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to regulatory economics, in the sense that government actually manages the economy, then I'll probably disagree that it's a myth, depending on what you mean by "most desirable social outcome." You and I might not share the same desired outcome.

Decius wrote:
For Liberals I'd suggest the following:

2. The Constitution does not protect an individual right to own weapons.

Amen! I'll have to buy you a drink at Outerz0ne 4. ;)

I would add this to the liberal myths...

7. Health care is a right.

...and add this to the conservative myths.

7. Homosexual marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
4. Unregulated markets will always select the most desirable social outcome.

First, I'd want to clarify what you mean by "unregulated."

If by "regulation," you mean "creating and enforcing laws & rules under which the participants in a given industry must operate, in the interest of creating level playing fields and protecting investors/consumers from unfair business practices" (my humble definition), then I agree with your inclusion of Conservative Myth #4.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to regulatory economics, in the sense that government actually manages the economy, then I'll probably disagree that it's a myth, depending on what you mean by "most desirable social outcome." You and I might not share the same desired outcome.

I've been meaning to get back to this discussion.

There is a wide distance between a communist planned economy and the sort of regulation that is debated in American politics. There is an ideology on the right that says that regulation is always harmful.... let the market decide, etc... this ideology is applied blindly... to the degree that it is assumed that whatever is desired will be provided by the market (market failures would be handled by charities if only those damn taxes weren't so high), or it is concluded that whatever the market has provided is what is desired. I once debated someone on the subject of healthcare, and when I demonstrated conclusively that average life expectancy is higher in western countries with national heathcare systems he exclaimed that I value human life more than the market... as if you say "how dare I seek to impose a higher value on human life than that which the market would naturally choose." In reality, there are market failures that cannot be efficiently addressed through charities, and the market is not a legitimate objective determiner of what social result is desired by people.

Stefanie wrote:
I would add this to the liberal myths...

7. Health care is a right.

This is what I'd really like to talk about. I'm not convinced that it isn't. Its not a recognized right in the United States today, but that may be because the US is behind the curve and not because its not actually a right.

Its obviously not a Constitutionally protected right, but I don't think anyone is arguing that. Could it be? Many federal Constitutional rights are constraints upon society. But can there be rights which create an obligation and not a constraint? What about the obligation to provide defense counsel in criminal trials? What about state constitutions that guarantee a right to a primary education?

So how do we decide what rights we should and shouldn't have. How do new rights become recognized? What makes something so important that it ought to be considered a right?

I like to think of healthcare like a society of boat people. Each person has their own boat. Randomly, the boats develop holes, and sink. Your boat has just developed such a hole. No one who owns one of the boats near you is willing to pick you up.

You have a choice, you can either force your way onto one of the boats, or you can die.

Is it immoral for you to save yourself by imposing yourself on another boat by force? Is there any reason you wouldn't choose to fight your way on to a boat if drowning is otherwise certain?

Do rights not exist when those who are denied those rights have no choice but war?

Put in this light, I'd say healthcare is more a right in need of recognition that speech. Ultimately, your choice to go to war to defend your freedom of speech is less clearly forced than your right to access healthcare. You CAN survive in a censorous society. Billions do. If you are dieing of cancer and you cannot afford treatment, you'll die.

In the middle ages, you'd have died anyway, and so healthcare was not enshrined as a right in English legal traditions. Today the situation has changed, and fundamental technological changes can change the structure of social relationships.... they can create new rights where they did not exist before....

For example, today, people who are cryonically frozen are legally dead, and it is illegal to cryonically freeze someone who is not legally dead. Its murder. But imagine if in the future it is a trivial matter to revive someone who is cryonically frozen. Would people who were cryonically frozen still be considered legally dead? Of course not. Technology would have changed the social status of those people.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
I would add this to the liberal myths... 7. Health care is a right.

This is what I'd really like to talk about.

Decius wrote:
I like to think of healthcare like a society of boat people. Each person has their own boat. Randomly, the boats develop holes, and sink. Your boat has just developed such a hole. No one who owns one of the boats near you is willing to pick you up.

You have a choice, you can either force your way onto one of the boats, or you can die.

Is it immoral for you to save yourself by imposing yourself on another boat by force? Is there any reason you wouldn't choose to fight your way on to a boat if drowning is otherwise certain?

You assume that there are no other options in your scenario. What about the possibility of fixing one's own boat? Rather than asking what government (society) is going to do about the boats, why can't the people at least attempt to address their own problems themselves? Have American citizens really become that helpless, incompetent, lazy, and/or irresponsible?

You also suggest that no one is willing to help anyone else. Is that how you would expect Americans to react? If so, you and I are experiencing different Americas, and I would go so far as to call that scenario unrealistically pessimistic. There are those who absolutely can't help themselves and need the help of others. There are also those who can help themselves, but don't. As for the latter category, their boats can sink, as far as I'm concerned. As for the former category, I believe that they can receive the help they need without us plunging the country into socialism.

Decius wrote:
Put in this light, I'd say healthcare is more a right in need of recognition than speech.

Damn! You don't play around! lol

Decius continued...
Ultimately, your choice to go to war to defend your freedom of speech is less clearly forced than your right to access healthcare. You CAN survive in a censorious society. Billions do. If you are dying of cancer and you cannot afford treatment, you'll die.

Why does the phrase "give me convenience, or give me death" come to mind? Yes, I know you're discussing life and health, not consumerism, but I can't imagine wanting to give up control over my own life for more life. I'm sure you've heard this before, but why not make water, food, and shelter rights, while you're at it? Those are all much more important and fundamental than healthcare.

New Hampshire's state motto is "Live free or die." It's a cool slogan to get people fired up whenever the British invade, but does it have any meaning in 2008? Would I rather live for forty years in a capitalistic, democratic republic with no guarantees, or for eighty years under a repressive, totalitarian regime that took care of me from c... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Stefanie wrote:
You assume that there are no other options in your scenario. What about the possibility of fixing one's own boat? Rather than asking what government (society) is going to do about the boats, why can't the people at least attempt address their own problems themselves? Have American citizens really become that helpless, incompetent, lazy, and/or irresponsible?

My scenario is not intended to eliminate that possibility. However, inevitably, and very realistically, some problems will be beyond the means of the individuals who incur them to manage, and that is really what is at issue when you talk about healthcare. You're talking about people who have critical illnesses and can not access care. (You are also talking about the overall cost of care, but that is not a "rights" issue so I'll leave it aside in this discussion.)

You also suggest that no one is willing to help anyone else. Is that how you would expect Americans to react?

Of course not. My scenario is not intended to eliminate the possibility of charity. However, inevitably, and very realistically, some problems will be beyond the reach of available charity. Some people will not find neighbors willing to offer them a ride. Certainly, there is a real problem with uninsured people in this country and charity is not bridging the gap. To see what they have been able to do, note the links below.

If so, you and I are experiencing different Americas, and I would go so far as to call that scenario unrealistically pessimistic.

Is it? See also this.

As for the former category, I believe that they can receive the help they need without us plunging the country into socialism.

Why is it that people insist on equating a national healthcare system with "plunging the country into socialism." Oh, please. Most western countries have a national healthcare system, including Hong Kong, which the Heritage Foundation calls the world's freest economy! The choices are not as black and white as freedom or despotism.

Why does the phrase "give me convenience, or give me death" come to mind? Yes, I know you're discussing life and health, not consumerism, but I can't imagine wanting to give up control over my own life for more life. I'm sure you've heard this before, but why not make water, food, and shelter rights, while you're at it? Those are all much more important and fundamental than healthcare.

And generally speaking, people have access to them. If there were 50 million homeless people in America it would be a bigger issue than it is, I think.

But lets focus on where you took this... Are there any tax supported government services that you support. What makes them different than tax supported government services that inevitably lead us to despotism? What are you willing to "give up control over you life" for?

Decius wrote:
Why is it that people insist on equating a national healthcare system with "plunging the country into socialism."

Hmm... because that's exactly what it is?

Decius wrote:
Oh, please. Most western countries have a national healthcare system...

Yes, and they're embracing socialism by doing so. It's nothing to be proud of (well, not for anyone who believes in capitalism, freedom, and individual responsibility).

Decius wrote:
But lets focus on where you took this... Are there any tax supported government services that you support. What makes them different than tax supported government services that inevitably lead us to despotism? What are you willing to "give up control over you life" for?

If by "government services," you mean "social programs," I don't support any of them, not even public schools. I'm not an anarchist, and I don't believe that government is bad, so long as it is limited in both size and scope. I have no desire to live in a nanny state.

Our federal and state constitutions should exist to establish government and protect us from government by limiting government. Laws should exist to protect us from each other (murder, rape, fraud), not from ourselves (mandatory motorcycle helmets, gambling bans, fatty food bans, Social Security). Government should exist to protect our rights, enforce the laws, defend the borders, regulate industries, build roads and courthouses, etc.

Government should not exist to micromanage our daily lives by planning for our retirement, ensuring that we exercise and maintain a proper diet, ensuring that we wear scarves when it's cold out, requiring that we go to sleep at a decent hour, or providing medicine when we're sick. Those are things we should be doing in the process of living our lives, and government should get out of our way, because 1) constitutionally, it's not government's place (more often than not), and 2) we, as individuals and private organizations, can do those things better than government.

Am I my brother's keeper? That's a question each of us has to answer from time to time, and I think each citizen should be allowed to choose his own answer. I don't think that I have any business answering that question for you or anyone else. Without that freedom to choose, charity cannot exist. Socialists, on the other hand, want the government to answer that question for all of us, in the affirmative.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
Why is it that people insist on equating a national healthcare system with "plunging the country into socialism."

Hmm... because that's exactly what it is?

I think you are being melodramatic. "Plunging the country into socialism" implies pervasive government control of the economy and redistribution of wealth. Gray people in gray coats marching in unison into gray factories. One social program does not cause this. By this standard, there is no "capitalist" society in the world today.

In general, I agree that the state shouldn't exist to protect us from ourselves. I don't put healthcare in that category. First, people are not responsible for the illnesses that afflict them. They can be, but generally, they're not. Second, healthcare doesn't work as a market commodity.

The first rule of negotiating is being able to walk away from the table. This works in most contexts, because you don't really need most things, or you can make due with lower quality items. Cars, houses, food, furniture, all of these things develop graduated quality scales wherein people can select cheap or expensive options, or choose not to play at all. Healthcare doesn't work that way. Not the serious stuff. If you've got cancer, you need the latest, greatest treatment, and you'll pay whatever is asked. The alternative is that you'll die. You can't walk away from the table. You can't go for a bargain alternative. Your life is on the line. Generally speaking, you don't get opportunity costs larger than death. So people are in no position to negotiate. They have to buy, and the people running the system price accordingly.

Decius wrote:
"Plunging the country into socialism" implies pervasive government control of the economy and redistribution of wealth.

In that case, we're already there. And yes, the "plunging" comment was intentionally melodramatic. :)

Decius wrote:
One social program does not cause this.

No, but this wouldn't exactly be the first such program in the U.S.A.

However, government healthcare (either as universal insurance or full-blown socialized medicine) is as large as such programs come. Even if it were the only social program, it would be too much.

Decius wrote:
By this standard, there is no "capitalist" society in the world today.

Very sad, very true.

Decius wrote:
First, people are not responsible for the illnesses that afflict them. They can be, but generally, they're not.

Then why is the citizen next door responsible for paying the cost? Responsibility for being sick has little to do with it. Responsibility for the cost of treatment is the issue, and that is the individual's responsibility, not society's.

Decius wrote:
Second, healthcare doesn't work as a market commodity.

If you've got cancer, you need the latest, greatest treatment, and you'll pay whatever is asked. The alternative is that you'll die. You can't walk away from the table.

That still doesn't justify my asking you to pay my medical bills, through taxation. Yes, there are cancer treatments that exist today that weren't available decades ago, but I don't have an automatic right to receive those treatments upon their discovery/invention/development. Just because I need something to treat/cure my illness doesn't mean you should automatically be burdened with my expenses.

Anyway, it comes down to one's core beliefs about rights and responsibilities. Capitalists and socialists are fundamentally different in that regard, and there's no way to satisfy both. Some do like the hybrid system we currently have in the U.S.A., but as we've seen, the two concepts pull in opposite directions, and they simply don't mix well. Sure, I'll take some capitalism over none, but I'd rather eliminate socialism.

Decius wrote:
(SNIP)

For Conservatives I'd suggest the following:

1. Judicial oversight prevents the police from investigating terrorism.

2. Waterboarding is no big deal. Its like a fraternity prank.

3. The impact of human activity on the environment is not important.

4. Unregulated markets will always select the most desirable social outcome.

5. No regulation of late-trimester abortions is possible due to Supreme Court decisions.

For Liberals I'd suggest the following:

1. There is no impending problem with social security and medicare.

2. The Constitution does not protect an individual right to own weapons.

3. If one opposes the decision to invade Iraq it naturally follows that one should support withdrawl from Iraq.

4. The best thing to do for the needy is usually to give them money or free services.

5. Taxation is not theft.

Anyone got any more? Wanna debate me on any of these?? :)

Decius, You got it right on... I'd like to add the following: (put them wherever you feel appropriate)

1. The Military should understand how to be police
2. We shouldn't give Soldiers, Police, Fire, and Teachers pay raises, they don't deserve them.
3. The current state of our defenses is far too expensive, we should cut military spending by XX%. (put your own number here)
4. If you make money, you OWE society and should pay MORE taxes to equal out your contribution for those less fortunate than you.
5. School vouchers are stupid, they undermine the government school system and will cause the general education system in America to collapse.

Decius wrote:
Anyone got any more? Wanna debate me on any of these?? :)

Happily. Or not so happily, as the case may be. I only have the energy for one at the moment...

5. Taxation is not theft.

Really? The government shouldn't exist? We should rely on charitable giving and corporate sponsorship to make sure the poor have food, basic research gets done, we have emergency first responders, and an army to protect us? Or, I guess if we all had lots of guns that last part would take care of itself. And the free and unregulated market will take care of the rest, now that I think of it. How silly of me. Gimme a fucking break.

k wrote:

Decius wrote:
Anyone got any more? Wanna debate me on any of these?? :)

Happily. Or not so happily, as the case may be. I only have the energy for one at the moment...

5. Taxation is not theft.

Really? The government shouldn't exist? We should rely on charitable giving and corporate sponsorship to make sure the poor have food, basic research gets done, we have emergency first responders, and an army to protect us? Or, I guess if we all had lots of guns that last part would take care of itself. And the free and unregulated market will take care of the rest, now that I think of it. How silly of me. Gimme a fucking break.

It does not follow from the conclusion that taxation is theft that taxation isn't necessary or even immoral.

Decius wrote:
It does not follow from the conclusion that taxation is theft that taxation isn't necessary or even immoral.

I see. The use of the term "theft" wasn't meant at all to imply any of the actual negative connotations that it carries. I understand now.

Wonderful use of language.

1. Deliberately pick a word that carries certain meaning to the reader due to the fact that THAT'S WHAT THE WORD MEANS.

2. Upon receiving the reader's argument, essentially, that that's the wrong word to be using, reply that you didn't mean it that way, but a different way.

3. Bask in your own cleverness.

The word "theft" implies immorality. Your use of the word was quite obviously meant to imply specifically that the appropriation of people's money by the government is, at least in part, an action with negative moral implications. If you didn't mean to imply that, then the use of the word theft was incorrect. If you're simply trying to goad people, I don't see the point of asking for debate. You clearly got the response you wanted.

I don't appreciate your ruse.

If you're trying to say that the democrats should be more attentive to the fact that people don't like taxation, say that. It's probably even true, although I think pinning the Democrats with this is a bit unfair. Even allowing that the Democrats, largely, want to raise taxes and expand spending on (evil, wasteful) social programs (that communities should provide, naturally, owing to everyone's natural Christian generosity), it should be noted that our friends in the Bush administration have been all about cutting taxes AND increasing spending. Awesome. Much better solution. Oh, but the war makes all that ok, I guess, so I'll leave off on that... we can have our war and our tax cuts too.

Of course, the basic argument against taxation is based upon the principle that people got to where they were on the basis of their own hard work and determination, and don't owe anyone else anything. Such people always, always overestimate how much of their success was actually based on their own hard work and determination, and how much is the result of living in a society that provides an infrastructure, an ecosystem, upon and within which their success could be built.

Now, there's a topic for debate.

k wrote:

Decius wrote:
It does not follow from the conclusion that taxation is theft that taxation isn't necessary or even immoral.

The word "theft" implies immorality.

You are implying some sort of argumentative slight of hand that I am not employing. Theft is when you take something from someone without their consent, sometimes by force. While theoretically speaking our government occurs by consent its not as if people have the real alternative of not participating. The government is a monopolpy on the use of force, and it applies that force to extract taxes. When people get together and impose greater taxes in order to create social services they are literally taking money from people by force and redistributing it. It literally is theft. The heart of the libertarian perspective is that this can never be moral. On the other hand many people on the left do not appreciate that there is any moral hazard associated with it at all. I don't agree with either perspective. If you are drowning and there is someone near by in a yacht, and they won't let you on willingly, I don't think its immoral for you to force your way on if the only alternative is drowning (although helping yourself to the wine after is a bit much). However, a court might literally see this as piracy.

Decius wrote:
While theoretically speaking our government occurs by consent

Precisely, and this is the crux of the whole thing. I don't disagree that your alternatives are minimal if you're of the opinion that our government isn't for you, and essentially boil down to a) go to another country b) live on open seas, c) kill yourself. Should there be an opt-out clause in the constitution? I don't know.

It pretty clearly wouldn't be practical though, and frankly, I think that exposes a deeper understanding of the degree of interdependency inherent in our society. Not as an after-effect, but as a foundational element. The notion of a man living entirely independent of society is not just a little bit batty, but also almost completely impossible. There are no real frontiers you can just walk past to get away. There are no places left where you can live and not be affected at all by the rest of humanity.

This all has implications for the definition of liberty : if you are completely free, you are also completely independent, isolated. Thus the idea of complete personal, individual liberty carries with it a presumption of detachment from society. As I believe that being completely solitary is not practically possible, then complete liberty isn't possible either. Nor is it desirable, or even necessarily moral according to some frameworks, but I'll table that for the moment.

Society grows by exploiting the benefits of networks, in large part. Of all people, surely, one who has studied social networks in such detail knows this. Individual genius and perseverance are indeed responsible for many of the great leaps forward, but they are nothing without their context. The network provides the framework for a non-zero-sum game of progress, and we're all born onto the network. One may rage, if one wishes, against the unfairness of being born into a system they find unpleasant, but doing so misses the point.

To argue against (the notion of) taxes is to argue against the maintenance of the network upon which society is and has been built. Well, fine, I'll admit I'm overstating that somewhat... the money could be derived elsewise, but I submit that those alternatives are either untenable due to scaling issues or due to human nature. I absolutely believe that taxation is the most fair and moral way to maintain society. The majority of arguments against taxation are, fundamentally, arguments against the fabric of society. The usually implied assumptions that an alternative -- and better -- network structure would take it's place have never been convincing to me (e.g. "the Free Market will take care of it" or "communities and local charitable organizations (including church groups) will take care of it" and so on). Of course, many arguments simply leave out even an implication of a better overall system.

In short, then, the reason that I do not feel overburdened by the "moral hazard" of taxation is that I find all arguments against it to be based upon a flawed understanding of the nature of society. Or else based purely on greed, which is a simpler issue to contend with, of course.

It doesn't constitute theft largely because I view it as the major mechanism by which I can maintain the existence of a social network which has been responsible for enabling my own success and, in fact, enabling Progress itself.

k wrote:
The word "theft" implies immorality.

Yep.

Decius wrote:
Theft is when you take something from someone without their consent, sometimes by force. While theoretically speaking our government occurs by consent its not as if people have the real alternative of not participating. The government is a monopoly on the use of force, and it applies that force to extract taxes.

Taxation is not theft, because consent has been given. As adult citizens, we all agree to a social contact with each other. We have government because it's necessary (not a necessary evil, just plain necessary). Whatever the government's role, it costs money for the government to function, and we citizens pay the government's bills through taxation, which is also necessary. Because we live in a free country, any citizen may opt out by going somewhere else to live... or by choosing one of the other options that k mentioned.

Decius wrote:
When people get together and impose greater taxes in order to create social services they are literally taking money from people by force and redistributing it. It literally is theft.

Now that's where we have some agreement, but one shouldn't conclude that taxation, as such, is theft. In your example above, I consider the redistribution of wealth to be a perversion of government that is detrimental to our society. While our money is being misappropriated (in my view), it isn't being acquired by theft.

Sadly, there are those who disagree with me and consider the redistribution of wealth an appropriate function of government. That's why we have elections. While I think our taxes are way too high, and that our governments (federal, state, and local) spend way too much of our money doing things that are far beyond the scope of those governments' responsibilities, I just don't see how one can equate taxation with theft, when we the people are the ones taxing ourselves.

Stefanie wrote:
Taxation is not theft, because consent has been given.

I'm not sure "moving somewhere else" is really a credible argument to the assertion that government is consensual. Government may be "legitimate" because it is sufficiently democratic, but it is not a consensual relationship.

First, it is not practical to simply "go somewhere else." You don't have complete freedom to organize in another location per your convictions. All of the other places are taken by other people with other rules, and they might not even be willing to let you in, assuming there is a system on the planet that you find satisfactory.

Second, as ironic as it was that the south fought to preserve the notion of government through "consent of the governed" in spite of the fact that the primary matter of dispute was slavery and southern slaves did not consent to their own conditions nor to the government of the south, the fact is that the notion of consensual government lost the civil war. Won was a country that was more legitimate, free, and egalitarian, but less consensual. I don't think the South's concept of consent (of an elite social caste) would be preferable, or necessarily extensible to cover the broader modern electorate, but it would be something...

Decius wrote:
I'm not sure "moving somewhere else" is really a credible argument to the assertion that government is consensual.

Well, it's as credible as the argument that taxation equals theft. ;) No one asked to be born into a given society, but no one in our society is making anyone stay here. One CAN leave, if one is so inclined. Apparently, it's also easy to get into this country, but that's another discussion.

I'm curious... how do you reconcile your assertion that taxation is theft with your view that healthcare is a right and should be provided by the government through mandatory taxation that redistributes wealth?

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
I'm not sure "moving somewhere else" is really a credible argument to the assertion that government is consensual.

Well, it's a credible as the argument that taxation equals theft. ;) No one asked to be born into a given society, but no one in our society is making anyone stay here. One CAN leave, if one is so inclined. Apparently, it's also easy to get into this country, but that's another discussion.

I'm curious... how do you reconcile your assertion that taxation is theft with your view that healthcare is a right and should be provided by the government through mandatory taxation that redistributes wealth?

Simple: Sometimes theft is necessary. See my boat analogy, or, if you will, the French revolution.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
I'm curious... how do you reconcile your assertion that taxation is theft with your view that healthcare is a right and should be provided by the government through mandatory taxation that redistributes wealth?

Simple: Sometimes theft is necessary. See my boat analogy, or, if you will, the French revolution.

Touché!