Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


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.

There is a word to distinguish what I described from 'property', and it's 'possession'.

To most primitive tribes, ownership is not natural at all: the harvest is shared by the whole tribe. What seemed natural to men until 3,000 BC was that nature belonged to everyone, and that it was in everyone's interest that property be collective.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

If a person has a right to nothing then he can't be wrong in taking what he has because he isn't stealing from anyone. He simply takes. Rights implies that someone else can't impinge... and it isn't 'law'. When people say "I have rights!" they mean that you can't do that because you are violating their rights. If no one has rights then you can do whatever you want because no is claiming any rights against you.

Just because you don't have a 'right' to do something doesn't mean you don't do so. I don't have a right to drink coke, but I can drink it just the same.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


There is a word to distinguish what I described from 'property', and it's 'possession'.

To most primitive tribes, ownership is not natural at all: the harvest is shared by the whole tribe. What seemed natural to men until 3,000 BC was that nature belonged to everyone, and that it was in everyone's interest that property be collective.

That was one of the reason why many indian tribes got so easily cheated by the american emissaries.

It was absolutely alien to them to sign a treaty about the possession of a piece of Land.
For them Land was just there, you can walk over it, some pieces of Land are good hunting grounds or places to rest, but noone owns it

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


If a person has a right to nothing then he can't be wrong in taking what he has because he isn't stealing from anyone. He simply takes. Rights implies that someone else can't impinge... and it isn't 'law'. When people say "I have rights!" they mean that you can't do that because you are violating their rights. If no one has rights then you can do whatever you want because no is claiming any rights against you.

Just because you don't have a 'right' to do something doesn't mean you don't do so. I don't have a right to drink coke, but I can drink it just the same.

Then, everyone has a right to anything- in which case, two persons bumping on the same fish will simply start a fight.
It's an absurd proposition: a right to everything, is a right to nothing, is a non-right, is a state of nature.

You say that a right implies someone can't impinge- but the proposition a "right to everything" obviously means that everyone CAN impinge and that therefore there is no right.

I think Hobbes needed to put this sentence this way to illustrate his point: that humans in a State are not recognizing someone's right, but rather abandoning their own. This a lot of implications down the road.

Just understand it this way: to say that a right to everything is a right to nothing is just an analytical truth; the second is the obvious and only possibel consequence to the first.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then, everyone has a right to anything- in which case, two persons bumping on the same fish will simply start a fight.

No, they don't have a RIGHT because a right must be enforced and cannot be violated.

You say that a right implies someone can't impinge- but the proposition a "right to everything" obviously means that everyone CAN impinge and that therefore there is no right.

Then it isn't really a 'right' to everything is it? If you can impinge on it, you don't have any rights.

that humans in a State are not recognizing someone's right, but rather abandoning their own.

That is only if you believe people have inherant rights.

Just understand it this way: to say that a right to everything is a right to nothing is just an analytical truth; the second is the obvious and only possibel consequence to the first.

No, I don't understand it that way. Right to everything is only something a King has.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
can discrimination be good?

What do you think discrimination is?? It's making a choice. Yes, making choices can be good.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


There is a word to distinguish what I described from 'property', and it's 'possession'.

To most primitive tribes, ownership is not natural at all: the harvest is shared by the whole tribe. What seemed natural to men until 3,000 BC was that nature belonged to everyone, and that it was in everyone's interest that property be collective.

A possession in your example is a very primitive property right. As culture's become more and more advanced and complicated the expression of the basic property right becomes more and more advanced and complicated. as I tried to point out by taking your example to the next logical step.

I certainly would expect cultural norms of neolithic times to be different from our own. And I would expect them to view as property those things that were tangible and divisible in thier mindset.

In addition, noone ever said that people couldn't give up a property right or that everything had to be owned. In 3000 bc it probably made about as much sense to say you owned a plot of land as it does nowadays to say you own specific air molecules. Someday that may change.

By the same token, I would imagine that Neolithic man still felt he owned certain things. Perhaps his spot in the cave, his clothes, his woman, his lucky rock etc etc etc. They also shared things land, the food from the hunt or scrounging etc etc.

That is no different then now. It is just different things that are deemed to be ownable or private/personal property.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

What do you think discrimination is?? It's making a choice. Yes, making choices can be good.

thats the uk/aussie/nz traditional meaning. in the us, its got a negative connotation.

[GePap]

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?

Was it? Maybe I missed when the Germans passed that law..wait, they didn't. When states decide to go whole hog, the dpon;t bother with making laws like "we can now commit genocide". The of course, there is the fact that Germany was a signatory to various international conventions, further complicating this all too common "counterarguement"

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

No one forces you to work-but you take your consequences of not doing it. Man had to work well before government- its a siomple part of living, and if anything, man in government, specially the big modern ones works less than he ever had to before and has higher standards of living than ever.

So that "theft" is what built the modern world, including this internet you now post on.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Then, everyone has a right to anything- in which case, two persons bumping on the same fish will simply start a fight.
It's an absurd proposition: a right to everything, is a right to nothing, is a non-right, is a state of nature.

Again, as Imran stated: the very word "right" implies a framework of relations. In the case you descrivbe, to men might very well start to fight for the fish, just like two creatures would fight for the fish-why, becuase both want it and the one who keeps it will be the stronger or smarter- it won;t be a matter of rights, only of superiority.

You say that a right implies someone can't impinge- but the proposition a "right to everything" obviously means that everyone CAN impinge and that therefore there is no right.

You were the one to say "right to everything", not imran. And there is no such thing as right to everything.

Just understand it this way: to say that a right to everything is a right to nothing is just an analytical truth; the second is the obvious and only possibel consequence to the first.

You are confusing Liberty to License, just as Deity Dude was confusing Possesion to property.

Liberty and Property imply relationships and limits in those relationships- license (as in licentious) and possesion do not- a dog can posses- the can not own. A cat my be free or licentious, but does not have liberty.

[MrBaggins]

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

It would only be stealing if you *had* to live in that country.

The US and most other westernized countries don't and wouldn't force you to stay there to participate in the currency/taxation system.

You're entirely free to pick another system, someone else... or maybe try to change the pluralities mind about it by running for high political office.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

they should carve out a libertarian country somewhere and let us live there in peace.

[Deity Dude]

Do people really have such a hard time understanding the concept that, a person can find a problem with a country and still not want to leave it. Especially when the exact same problem exists in most countries.

If I live in a high crime area because I like other things about the area, and get my car stolen, isn't it still a theft even if I had the chance to leave but I didn't?

This argument that taking people's goods against thier will isn't theft because they could theoretically uproot thier entire existance and leave the country makes no sense to me.

And BTW Gepap, the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was law and policy, but even if you want to argue semantics with me about that particular example, I'm sure you would agree with me that many governments have passed many horrible and immoral laws that were "legal" simply because the people in charge passed them. Chattel slavery for example.

My point is that just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Likewise, just because I could theoretically leave a country that has an immoral law and choose not to doesn't make the law any more moral.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
And BTW Gepap, the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was law and policy, but even if you want to argue semantics with me about that particular example, I'm sure you would agree with me that many governments have passed many horrible and immoral laws that were "legal" simply because the people in charge passed them. Chattel slavery for example.

"The Final Solution" was policy- not law. difference.

My point is that just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Likewise, just because I could theoretically leave a country that has an immoral law and choose not to doesn't make the law any more moral.

Which is why we moved on the the discussion of naturla rights- you keep calling taxation theft- but that presuposes some sort of ownership to the money seperate from taxation- as opposed to possesion. A dog can posses, but if I take something from a dog, it is not theft, becuase the dog has no legal ownership rights.

Property rights spring from the same relationships that make taxation possible.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


Which is why we moved on the the discussion of naturla rights- you keep calling taxation theft- but that presuposes some sort of ownership to the money seperate from taxation- as opposed to possesion. A dog can posses, but if I take something from a dog, it is not theft, becuase the dog has no legal ownership rights.

Property rights spring from the same relationships that make taxation possible.

Well i think we hit a wall here. If you think people don't have natural rights because dogs can only possess and not own in a legal sense, I tend to disagree. Humans and dogs are different.