Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
Obviously you are arguing form the grave falacy of "natural rights"

I'm not sure you are being coherent here GePap. If you believe there are no natural rights, then you must assume that anyone has a right to anything- which in turn is a natural right. (EDIT: natural in that it exists in the state of nature)

Then, perhaps you are referencing to the 20th century philosophers who have denied any kind of natural rights? Then I'm sorry, I've not read them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure you are being coherent here GePap. If you believe there are no natural rights, then you must assume that anyone has a right to anything- which in turn is a natural right.

Not necessarily. Absense of natural right doesn't mean everyone has a right to everything. It means no one has the right.

Then, perhaps you are referencing to the 20th centuries philosophers who have denied any kind of natural rights? Then I'm sorry, I've not read them.

Slight nitpick, Nietszche (my favorite philosopher as well) was in the 19th Century .

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


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"

It was legal in Germany to execute millions of Jews. Slavery was legal in many countries. Want a few more examples?

In many countries right now it is legal for the government to steal money/force labor involuntarily. I don't think anyone is disputing the legality of it.

Obviously anything the state defines as legal is legal within its borders as long as it has the power to enforce its laws.

I was speaking more about the immorality of the government stealing or forcing its citizens into labor against thier will.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not necessarily. Absense of natural right doesn't mean everyone has a right to everything. It means no one has the right.

Really? I mean, can you really claim no one has the right to forage and hunt anywhere in a state of nature?

Slight nitpick, Nietszche (my favorite philosopher as well) was in the 19th Century .

Yeah. I only have a limited knowledge of Nietzsche. Did he deny any kind of natural rights?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean, can you really claim no one has the right to forage and hunt anywhere in a state of nature?

First you have to assert that a state of nature ever exists.

Yeah. I only have a limited knowledge of Nietzsche. Did he deny any kind of natural rights?

Yes. Basically asserted that they were put in place by people in power.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


It was legal in Germany to execute millions of Jews. Slavery was legal in many countries. Want a few more examples?

In many countries right now it is legal for the government to steal money/force labor involuntarily. I don't think anyone is disputing the legality of it.

Obviously anything the state defines as legal is legal within its borders as long as it has the power to enforce its laws.

I was speaking more about the immorality of the government stealing or forcing its citizens into labor against thier will.

The point DD is that property necessarily requires a State to enforce it, and therefore that the State decides how it will be handled.

No one believes anymore that property is a natural right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one believes anymore that property is a natural right.

Those that believe in natural rights do. Or a lot of them do.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
First you have to assert that a state of nature ever exists.

Actually, we could take Hobbes' definition, in which the state of nature is merely the lack of a coercive State. In such a case, anyone can obviously cut any tree he likes, sleep in any field, fish in any river.

We could also take the anthropological route, back to hunter-foragers era. Since there was no food preservation at the time, obviously those who 'owned' a bush where those who were taking the fruits in it, at the time of the action only; those who owned meat were those actually running after the deers. Before and after, the deer belongs to anyone.

Yes. Basically asserted that they were put in place by people in power.

Good ol' Nietzsche. Will always surprise me.
[note: not that I think he's wrong, just that he's got such a huge tendency to blame everything on the elites... it's kind of funny]

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The point DD is that property necessarily requires a State to enforce it, and therefore that the State decides how it will be handled.

No one believes anymore that property is a natural right.

Speak for yourself.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Those that believe in natural rights do. Or a lot of them do.

Well, they would be idiots, because in a state of nature there is obviously no way to accumulate wealth. Everything that you own is either being consumed (a berry) or absolutely necessary to your survival (a fur coat, a sharp rock).

[Imran Siddiqui]

in which the state of nature is merely the lack of a coercive State. In such a case, anyone can obviously cut any tree he likes, sleep in any field, fish in any river.

But no one has a RIGHT to any of that. The next day, the stronger guy can say, my tree, my field, my river and if you trespass, I'll beat you.

just that he's got such a huge tendency to blame everything on the elites

Well it isn't blame. It's fact. Morals are those put in place by the powerful and followed by the sheep of society.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But no one has a RIGHT to any of that. The next day, the stronger guy can say, my tree, my field, my river and if you trespass, I'll beat you.

Bah, stop nitpicking. You have read Hobbes and you understand what I mean. If everyone has a right to everything, then it's a matter of who is more powerful.

I mean the "right to everything"="the right to nothing", it's pure semantic.

Well it isn't blame. It's fact. Morals are those put in place by the powerful and followed by the sheep of society.

I assumed it was a blame, in that the sheeps are stupid enough to follow. Am I wrong?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean the "right to everything"="the right to nothing", it's pure semantic.

No, it isn't. That's my point. The right to nothing is distinct from the right to everything. If you have a 'right' to everything than those who are more powerful cannot transgress. If you have a right to nothing then the powerful can take over. Remember, a 'right' is something you can claim against someone else.

I assumed it was a blame, in that the sheeps are stupid enough to follow. Am I wrong?

No, because he doesn't blame the elites for doing what they do. He blames the sheep for following .

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Well, they would be idiots, because in a state of nature there is obviously no way to accumulate wealth. Everything that you own is either being consumed (a berry) or absolutely necessary to your survival (a fur coat, a sharp rock).

So you recognize owning a sharp rock, a berry or a fur coat as a natural right. Can I plant the seed from the berry i own and own the berry tree. Can I domesticate an animal and make a fur coat out of it later. Can I make 4 sharp rocks and trade them for berries?

It seems very natural for humans, even in a state of nature, to own property and own the fruits of thier labor.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, it isn't. That's my point. The right to nothing is distinct from the right to everything. If you have a 'right' to everything than those who are more powerful cannot transgress. If you have a right to nothing then the powerful can take over. Remember, a 'right' is something you can claim against someone else.

That's because you're a lawyer. The real word would probably be 'arightful'. The neolithic man won't refrain himself from hunting because he suddenly feels like doesn't have any rights. He's just gonna take what's in his path. If you claim he has a 'right to nothing', then he must have been wrong in doing what he did, while in fact he was neither right or wrong.