"Freedom" thread or something

thellama73 wrote: Oh I completely understand that poor people who get free money from others don't think it's wrong

Sorry Logan, but this is the kind of statement that makes libertarians look like apostles for the rich and completely oblivious to the rest of the world. The tax = theft idea, though not unique to America, is basically only sort of mainstream here in the US. When I was in Switzerland, by NO accounts a poor country full of destitutes (quite the opposite) as my sister lives there, I tried to check around and see what people think of taxation (which is quite high in there). I had the chance to gather thoughts of a lot of people (yes, not the entire population but random enough to give me an idea) and people there couldn't even begin to think of eliminating all taxes as they see they get great services in exchange. Same in Germany. From friends in other quite-not-poor places I have gathered the same.

Taxes might be morally wrong (I'm not sure) but I wouldn't say that only poor people support them. The "I hate taxes" thing is mostly American. And that's fine. In the end the people arguing here for libertarianism all live in the US. But don't fall in the error of generalization yourself.

thellama73 wrote: Why do people keep mentioning whether an idea is popular or mainstream? What does that have to do with anything?

Because if they can paint you as a lunatic, they do not have to intellectually engage you.

It's quite the same thing with racism, really.

Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: A question for the other libertarians here: would you prefer a government that had a social safety net with welfare, healthcare coverage, etc., but was funded entirely by donations, or a government that imposed taxation but had low tax rates and used the money only for the enforcement of the non-agression principle? The former wouldn't be a government.  It'd be a charity.

So are you an anarcho-capitalist then?  I was under the impression that you thought government should exist but that it should not have power to tax and that it's sole purpose would be to enforce the non-agression principle?  I guess I should have made it more clear: the first idea of government I described would cover the "safety net" but would also enforce that principle.

So if a property-rights respecting government used money donated voluntarily from its people to fund a welfare program, would you be for that program or against it?

Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - August 02 2013 at 23:34

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: So if a property-rights respecting government used money donated voluntarily from its people to fund a welfare program, would you be for that program or against it?

What makes this a government?

thellama73 wrote: Oh I completely understand that poor people who get free money from others don't think it's wrong, but what other people think has no effect on what I think unless they can make a persuasive argument. I have never seen any distinction between an individual taking someone else's money for his own purposes and the government doing so, the government being nothing more than a large collection of individuals, and have never heard any convincing reason why the two things are different, morally speaking.

Edited by rogerthat - August 03 2013 at 08:53

An article about South Korean hagwons.

rogerthat wrote: If a particular individual living in India cannot empathise with this need and does not want to pay for the sins of his father, he/she is free to leave the country.  There is no coercion; from way back when India has never stopped its citizens from leaving for good if they so desire.

You've just described coercion.

That's all fine and good if you assume that the laws are moral or not coercive themselves and if people have no right to their property. If on the other hand you assume taxation is theft, you have a situation where an organization is stealing from you with the ultimatum to pack up and leave if you don't like it. That's how mobs operate. 

In this thread, it was argued before in favour of big bad business and their employment practices that you knew what you signed up for so you made the choice to accept coercive policies.  How does it work differently then wrt tax and govt?  Yes, you had the misfortune of growing up in a country that steals your money but having become wise to the fact, you do have the choice to leave the nation in search of places like, um, Dubai? to escape tax if it is indeed a pain point for you.  No democratic nation forces you to both pay tax and stay put forever.