Soaking the Rich

Author: Jeff_Goldblum

Posts

Total: 102
#61
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
it doesn't appear to follow that ALL humans are worth preserving
I am not prepared emotionally or intellectually to decide which humans do not deserve to live. You are welcome to take a wack at it but I presume you will get a lot of pushback from whichever humans you deem unworthy. 
#62
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
it doesn't appear to follow that ALL humans are worth preserving
I am not prepared emotionally or intellectually to decide which humans do not deserve to live. You are welcome to take a wack at it but I presume you will get a lot of pushback from whichever humans you deem unworthy. 
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
#63
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
this is an interesting comparison
It's intended to ridicule the proposition that in the face of aggression, it's incumbent on the target to flee, rather than the aggressor to stop or be stopped.

do "security services" and "package delivery" qualify as "marketable services" ?
Yes. However, Police and Mail are not sold in the market; they're just provided after the fact of taxation, a portion of which is provided to the aforementioned and is determined strictly by the government.

#64
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Yes. However, Police and Mail are not sold in the market; they're just provided after the fact of taxation, a portion of which is provided to the aforementioned and is determined strictly by the government.
what would you say to the proposal that these are considered "essential services" and should be provided to all citizens (in order to qualify as a "functional society") ?
#65
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
what would you say to the proposal that these are considered "essential services"
How "essential" a service is ought to be determined by the market.

and should be provided to all citizens
Provided by who? At who's expense? If in one's proposal, one's going ignore any moral/ethical dilemmas then why stop at taxation? Why not just enslave a group of individuals and train and coerce them into providing these services?

(in order to qualify as a "functional society") ?
The functionality of a society is contingent on the individuals who comprise it.

#66
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Inarguably the biologically ingrained hierarchy. Still one could argue that it would be monstrous to use this as an excuse to or a defense of exploiting the weak/defenseless or to initiate a policy of eugenics. 
#67
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Inarguably the biologically ingrained hierarchy. Still one could argue that it would be monstrous to use this as an excuse to or a defense of exploiting the weak/defenseless or to initiate a policy of eugenics. 
i find the gravity of this three point "essential moral framework" lies in its nearly perfect universality

and while i do not necessarily disagree with your listed concerns, i am curious to know if you've managed to find an actual logic based counter point

to extend my reasoning here, i've found that basically, the best way to defend these three points is to spread these essential ideas and associate with like-minded individuals and defend your neighbor (and their right to defend themselves) with a similar measure of conviction that one would defend themselves

neighbors protecting neighbors in a decentralized and fully redundant anarchic cohesive tribalistic system
#68
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
while i do not necessarily disagree with your listed concerns, i am curious to know if you've managed to find an actual logic based counter point
It is difficult to justify the existence of humanity, and by extension individual humans, in other than emotional terms. There is no logically sound reason why humans must be protected or even be kept alive. We have only our collective will to live.
#69
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Provided by who? At who's expense?
try this hypothesis,

imagine a world where the police and mail services went on strike and or had their budgets cut off entirely

kinda like the opening scene of robocop

don't the "rich" have "more to lose" in this scenario ?

there are clearly more "poor" and it would seem likely they would overwhelm the "rich" with sheer numerical advantage

sure, eventually it would all "settle down" and revert back to some sort of "wild west" maybe 1860's fever dream (if we're lucky)

but we'd very likely end up with "company towns" and workers dealing with the prospect of near-slavery conditions (which we might be heading towards anyway)

it would be nice if we all raised our own food on our own land giving us very little incentive to violate our neighbor's rights

but i'm just not sure we can get to that point from where we are now

my understanding is that "welfare" and "public services" are "cheaper" than "incarceration"

the "rich" subsidize the "poor" in order to keep them from throwing "La Révolution"

net "taxes" are actually negative for nearly everyone making less than $100,000 a year
#70
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,177
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Arguing that one is obligated to pay the government taxes is like arguing one is obligated to pay a local mob "protection money."
If I am actively accepting the local mobs protection, them yes I am obligated to pay into it. If on the other hand they are protecting me without my knowledge or consent and I am doing nothing I wouldn't have done anyway then I am not obligated.

That's not remotely what's happening here. You will continue to drive in public roads, use public water systems, use the electric grid, etc. etc. etc., all while arguing that you shouldn't have to pay for it. That's absurd. Since when do you have a right to use that which others worked for and paid for for free?

I own my property.
Really? Says who? The same governing authority you reject as illigitimate?

Without the government - funded by your tax dollars - declaring the land you claim to be yours, the only thing that says you own it is your own ability to forcefully defend it from being taken. So if I come along with a bigger gun it's now my property.

Yet another benefit you enjoy while arguing you shouldn't have to pay for it...

none of the services you've listed is limited to government expertise
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it could have arisen without a tax funded government, that is how it got there.

And I've asked you this before but will try again... Is there a place anywhere in human history that accomplished the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as you take advantage of everyday that arose without a governing authority?
#71
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
try this hypothesis,

imagine a world where the police and mail services went on strike and or had their budgets cut off entirely

kinda like the opening scene of robocop

don't the "rich" have "more to lose" in this scenario ?

there are clearly more "poor" and it would seem likely they would overwhelm the "rich" with sheer numerical advantage

sure, eventually it would all "settle down" and revert back to some sort of "wild west" maybe 1860's fever dream (if we're lucky)

but we'd very likely end up with "company towns" and workers dealing with the prospect of near-slavery conditions (which we might be heading towards anyway)

it would be nice if we all raised our own food on our own land giving us very little incentive to violate our neighbor's rights

but i'm just not sure we can get to that point from where we are now

my understanding is that "welfare" and "public services" are "cheaper" than "incarceration"

the "rich" subsidize the "poor" in order to keep them from throwing "La Révolution"

net "taxes" are actually negative for nearly everyone making less than $100,000 a year
So taxes are tantamount to the rich paying the poor "protection" money?
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
So taxes are tantamount to the rich paying the poor "protection" money?
BINGO
#73
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
my understanding is that "welfare" and "public services" are "cheaper" than "incarceration"

the "rich" subsidize the "poor" in order to keep them from throwing "La Révolution"

net "taxes" are actually negative for nearly everyone making less than $100,000 a year
When the curtain is pulled back the wizard is exposed and so loses his power.
#74
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
If I am actively accepting the local mobs protection,
How is one "actively accepting" a local mob's protection when they're the source of the threat, and using that threat to coerce you?

If on the other hand they are protecting me without my knowledge or consent and I am doing nothing I wouldn't have done anyway then I am not obligated.
The point of paying "protection" money to a mob is not that they actually "protect" you. It's a means to extort money out of you by threatening to harm you or disrupt your business.

That's not remotely what's happening here.
That's exactly what's happening here.

You will continue to drive in public roads, use public water systems, use the electric grid, etc. etc. etc., all while arguing that you shouldn't have to pay for it. That's absurd.
Another asinine argument. No one is arguing that one shouldn't have to pay for services they consume. The government by threat of force assumes priority over these services and coerces payment, whether one consumes them or not. The argument that one is therefore financially obligated to this government is absurd!

Since when do you have a right to use that which others worked for and paid for for free?
I do not claim a right to use that which others worked for and paid for; I claim a right to the products of my time and labor, my gifts, myself and my property. And I bear no obligation to any person or establishment/organization/institution/corporation that presumes priority over the dissemination of services WITH THE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE and COERCES FINANCIAL "TRIBUTE" for services I did not seek from them.

Really? Says who?
Says the arrangement between me and the previous owner.

The same governing authority you reject as illigitimate?
No.

Without the government - funded by your tax dollars - declaring the land you claim to be yours, the only thing that says you own it is your own ability to forcefully defend it from being taken.
This is the case de facto.

So if I come along with a bigger gun it's now my property.
And the government has bigger guns, so they would presume that it's "their property." How does this serve as a counterpoint to my objection?

Yet another benefit you enjoy while arguing you shouldn't have to pay for it...
There's cognitive dissonance in the expression of an argument that posits that being coerced and subject to aggression is a "benefit I enjoy."

That's irrelevant.
It's extremely relevant.

It doesn't matter if it could have arisen without a tax funded government, that is how it got there.
It does matter because your arguments have been prefaced with "Without the government..." This is an asinine argument because it would be like arguing, "Without the mob..." there'd be no pizzaria's in the corner, or construction sites, or body shops, or sports books, which I "enjoy," thereby justifying the extortion and aggression to which I am subject. And like the mob, the government IS NOT NECESSARILY RESPONSIBLE for the talents and skills which transformed into marketable services. Irrigation, road paving, electrical engineering, are skills than can be exchanged in an open market, thereby nullifying any argument "without the government..." especially since the government doesn't provide any of these mentioned services itself.

Is there a place anywhere in human history that accomplished the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as you take advantage of everyday that arose without a governing authority?
There has virtually always been government in recorded history, so there's little to no sample data. If however you intend to use this as a pretext to an argument where it's suggested that "Without government..." the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs of which you assume I take advantage would not be around or possible, not only will I not entertain your argumentum ad ignorantiam, but also I will demand your satisfy your onus and prove this to be the case.
#75
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
BINGO
So the U.S. government takes in about 4 Trillion in tax revenue. There are about 42 million poor people in the United States. If you take about half of that and distributed it among the poor, that's roughly $48,000 each annually. What does is say about a society's functionality when a demographic albeit a minority are extorted in service to another demographic, namely paying them to halt any prospective wide-scale aggression? Why would they--the rich--even want to participate in such a society?

#76
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
this debate about the role of government reminds me of a family guy episode. peter joins the libertarians and then disbands the government. then, to create order and justice in their new system, they agree to follow some basic rules and everybody chip in for the common good... all without the government!
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
that's roughly $48,000 each annually.
public school alone costs the state approximately $12,000.00 per year per child

that's about $144,000.00 per child for an average high-school diploma

not to mention police and fire protection and what driving would cost if every road was a private toll-road
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Why would they--the rich--even want to participate in such a society?
because if they use the right combination of rhetoric and incentives, they can manipulate the system to allow them to live better than most kings
#79
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
public school alone costs the state approximately $12,000.00 per year per child

that's about $144,000.00 per child for an average high-school diploma

not to mention police and fire protection and what driving would cost if every road was a private toll-road
If that's the case, public schooling would create a three trillion dollar obligation even if the entirety of tax revenue were spent on it. Perhaps the organization which regulates the allocation of funds is not particularly efficient.

because if they use the right combination of rhetoric and incentives, they can manipulate the system to allow them to live better than most kings
They can live better than those who live better than most kings, without the system.

#80
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,002
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
The acquisition and retention of wealth is a skill.

The inability to acquire and retain wealth is what it is, and so is resentment and jealousy.

If you could be on the 700 list, you would be.


#81
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
If you could be on the 700 list, you would be.
I wouldn't. Not, and you will forgive the irony, for all the money in the world. I do not in fact wish to be doing any better than I am now necessarily (though if it were not such a struggle to remain in place that would be nice).

The wealthy and powerful can think of nothing but protecting and adding to their wealth and power while the working poor dream only of no one having power over them.
#82
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,177
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
The government by threat of force assumes priority over these services and coerces payment, whether one consumes them or not. The argument that one is therefore financially obligated to this government is absurd!
Do you believe you benefit from the system you live in? Yes or No?

I claim a right to the products of my time and labor
Of course, we all do. The question here is how much of your product is due to you're time and labor? If you are an Uber driver for example, you make a living transporting people on roads the rest of us paid to build. Do you believe you are therefore entitled to 100% of the revenue generated from this?

Really? Says who?
Says the arrangement between me and the previous owner.
Why should I or anyone else respect that? What gives you and this previous "owner" the right to proclaim the land which you sit on to be yours now? If I come along and manage to forcefully take it, what is to stop me from being the new owner?

There has virtually always been government in recorded history, so there's little to no sample data.
Exactly, because every civilization that came before us has already figured this out. Human nature does not work the way you wish it did. Products and services for the public good are not produced by individuals acting on their own individual behalf. They're produced by individuals working within an entity designed to benefit the public good.

This is common sense.

If however you intend to use this as a pretext to an argument where it's suggested that "Without government..." the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs of which you assume I take advantage would not be around or possible, not only will I not entertain your argumentum ad ignorantiam, but also I will demand your satisfy your onus and prove this to be the case.
You are the one claiming you shouldn't have to pay into any of this despite continuing to enjoy the benefits of it. That argument can only make sense if any of the things I'm talking about would have arisen without a government. So the onus is on you as well. Support your claim.
#83
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
They can live better than those who live better than most kings, without the system.
there is a hard upper limit to how much comfort and entertainment any particular human can enjoy in one lifetime

and,

strangely enough,

the people running this shit-show feel like they can live with a "clean-conscience" if the slaves "VOLUNTARILY" participate

this is the key benefit of the current system over say, FLAGRANT TYRANNY
#84
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5

if a person is a hermit or recluse that doesnt participate in society, maybe they have a claim to not owing society anything or not wanting to pay taxes. anyone who participates in common society owes that government for what it does, in at least some capacity. it's irrational to say otherwise. 

"Exactly, because every civilization that came before us has already figured this out."

sums up how obvious this is. the dude arguing against this, is crazy

#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgim
if a person is a hermit or recluse that doesnt participate in society, maybe they have a claim to not owing society anything or not wanting to pay taxes. anyone who participates in common society owes that government for what it does, in at least some capacity
well stated
#86
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,966
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
For people who were talking about cannibalism and eating the rich:

With lab grown meat anything’s possible. The rich and famous could potentially licence their cells to companies or whatever the legal jargon is.
I find this idea entertaining.
#87
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,002
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree.

I'm 62 years of age, and I don't expect that my social niche will change.

By virtue of birth and upbringing, I am far more fortunate than a lot of my fellow earthlings.

I am content with the way things are.

I would suggest that the super-rich are no more content than I am.

There's only so much spare time in a day to be spent doing fun stuff, and I would be bored to tears floating about on a super-yacht all day.

Though I wonder how much time the super-rich get to spend on their super-yachts.
#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree.

I'm 62 years of age, and I don't expect that my social niche will change.

By virtue of birth and upbringing, I am far more fortunate than a lot of my fellow earthlings.

I am content with the way things are.

I would suggest that the super-rich are no more content than I am.

There's only so much spare time in a day to be spent doing fun stuff, and I would be bored to tears floating about on a super-yacht all day.

Though I wonder how much time the super-rich get to spend on their super-yachts.
well stated
#89
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe you benefit from the system you live in? Yes or No?
You're not addressing the objection. Your statement is akin to: "well, did you feel aroused while being raped? Yes or no?" While my statements are akin to "rape is rape, feelings of arousal notwithstanding." My contention isn't against members of a community pooling and organizing their funds in order to establish and sustain goods shared by them all, i.e. roads, irrigation, electricity etc. My contention is against an organization that seizes priority over the provisions and dissemination of these goods BY FORCE, and obtains these funds--which are mostly allocated elsewhere--to sustain these goods BY THE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE. So you can attempt to pigeonhole our exchange to a dispute over "benefits and drawbacks," but I will not entertain it. Address the objection.

Of course, we all do. The question here is how much of your product is due to you're time and labor? If you are an Uber driver for example, you make a living transporting people on roads the rest of us paid to build. Do you believe you are therefore entitled to 100% of the revenue generated from this?
Of course. The road does not provide the service, otherwise the clients could opt to WALK ON THAT VERY SAME ROAD "THE REST OF YOU" PAID TO BUILD. Your argument is utter nonsense. It would be like arguing that a professional basketball player is indebted to Spalding and now Wilson for the massive incomes they generate. If you're personally responsible for financing and building that road, and you maintain ownership, then restrict access or charge tolls.

Why should I or anyone else respect that? What gives you and this previous "owner" the right to proclaim the land which you sit on to be yours now?
Moral concept.

If I come along and manage to forcefully take it, what is to stop me from being the new owner?
Moral concept.

Exactly, because every civilization that came before us has already figured this out. Human nature does not work the way you wish it did.
Yes, please inform me on Human Nature using Hobbes's contradictions. If man's nature disallows him from being left to his own devices, then why would that very nature facilitate him/her to join and organize with other humans and maintain a concept called "government"?

Products and services for the public good are not produced by individuals acting on their own individual behalf.
Non sequitur.

They're produced by individuals working within an entity designed to benefit the public good.
And what does it say about an "entity designed to benefit the public good" if it THREATENS those over whom it presides with THE RESPONSE OF DEADLY FORCE IN THE ADVENT OF DISSENT?

You are the one claiming you shouldn't have to pay into any of this despite continuing to enjoy the benefits of it. That argument can only make sense if any of the things I'm talking about would have arisen without a government. So the onus is on you as well. Support your claim.
This is your argument:

Is there a place anywhere in human history that accomplished the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as you take advantage of everyday that arose without a governing authority?
Not mine. I'm neither obligated nor willing to entertain an argument which implicitly concludes that "the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as [I] take advantage of everyday could not have arisen without a governing authority." I'm not going to entertain your argument from ignorance just because you frame it in a question.

I have maintained that none of the services you've listed are limited to government expertise.
#90
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
there is a hard upper limit to how much comfort and entertainment any particular human can enjoy in one lifetime
Why would there be a limit on that which is not quantifiable?

strangely enough,

the people running this shit-show feel like they can live with a "clean-conscience" if the slaves "VOLUNTARILY" participate

this is the key benefit of the current system over say, FLAGRANT TYRANNY
I would personally agree with this. Though if we are to maintain our examples and standards, there is no way for either of us to know how "clean" their consciences feel.