Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Kidlicious]

Mill was a utilitarian.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Mill was a utilitarian.

The Mill limit is any libertarian's best weapon.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


You are the one calling taxation a form of quasi-slavery..
I guess if you had lived in the slave holding south, you would have gone along with the system becuase while you say you find it horribly immoral, heck, its the law...

If I were a slaveand were faced with the choice of living in slavery or attempting an escape in which I felt I would be caught, Tortured and then returned to slavery, I would probably continue to live as a slave. Not because it is the law but because I value my life more then trying to prove the law wrong.

Are we to assume you gained these views after becoming a father? (since if you got them before, this excuse would no apply).

That is my personal situation. Even if I were single living alone with no dependents I woudl still follow the law. I say this not because it is moral but out of pure selfishness.

I don't see anything to be gained by protesting a law, going to jail and them being subject to the same law. We are not all Gandhi's or Christ's

Thats why the law works. The government gives you the evil choice of follwoing an imoral law or being put in a cage. Most people can swallow a little immorality when compared to thier freedom. Even if the immorality in question is reducing your own feedom.

IN the end, money is nothing but a socially accepted method of transaction- everything in your bankaccount is worth a damn only becuase the government of the uS is stable- if tommorrow the government fell, all that money, "your money", would be worthless regardless of your actions. If the government started printing money indescrimnately, your savings would become worhtless. This is only there to point to the obvious fact that money (as opposed to goods) is a social convetion whose value changes and in tied to the actions of the government-thus to state you have any intrinsic right to it is absurd.

Money is a scorecard used to assign value to different goods and services. When u steal my money you steal my future goods and services.

[Az]

You may be right about that in general, but this is certainly not the case with the Rights adherants.

Besides, IMHO this liberty is somewhat undermining the basics of utilitarianism, much like rule utilitarianism.

[GePap]

Money is a scorecard used to assign value to different goods and services. When u steal my money you steal my future goods and services.

That is only valid between two private individuals-when the state deducts money from what you have for taxes, you will recieve services for it. You may not like the services you might get, or grip about not getting enough for what was taken, but services you will recieve.

And again, the value of that scorecard is set by the actions of the state- today your dollars ar worht less than before- but you could not state that the difference now between the goods and services you could have recieve dbefore in a different currency such as the Euro amounts to some sort of theft of your potential future gains.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The Mill limit is any libertarian's best weapon.

That's not my experience around here. The libertarians around here are very absolute about individual rights. Mill's only supported individual rights to the extent that they did the most good for the most people. The libertarians around here always argue against utilitarianism, because they are extremists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Verto
No, they would hire mercenary armies.

What do you think a government is?

[Imran Siddiqui]

because they are extremists.

Extremists are bad, m'kay?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap
[
That is only valid between two private individuals-when the state deducts money from what you have for taxes, you will recieve services for it. You may not like the services you might get, or grip about not getting enough for what was taken, but services you will recieve.

And again, the value of that scorecard is set by the actions of the state- today your dollars ar worht less than before- but you could not state that the difference now between the goods and services you could have recieve dbefore in a different currency such as the Euro amounts to some sort of theft of your potential future gains.

A change in value due to an outside source is not theft any more then a poor harvest due to bad weather is theft.

However if u take some of my harvest or my money, even if the value has changed it is theft.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

because they are extremists.

Extremists are bad, m'kay?

Just to clarify, that's not my opinion. My point was only that JS Mill was not a libertarian of the type here at Poly.

[Dis]

I support taxing rich people. I'm not rich, I don't care. I can care less if democrats such as Kerry tax the rich. I just hope they don't tax folks like me who unofficially make less than $30,00 a year.

[Verto]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What do you think a government is?

I thought the hypothetical scenario was one without government protecting the rich.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just to clarify, that's not my opinion.

Never said it was... guess you don't watch South Park, eh?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Just to clarify, that's not my opinion.

Never said it was... guess you don't watch South Park, eh?

Yes I do. I know what you were saying.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
However if u take some of my harvest or my money, even if the value has changed it is theft.

Theft can only occur within a legal system that gives you the right to own something- a legal system created by the state- and thus the state taking it is almost be definition not theft, specially taxation.

Anymore than you can call the state executing a criminal murder.

Obviously you are arguing form the grave falacy of "natural rights"